Legality of ‘Dodgy fire sticks’ / IPTV devices?
Discussion
It seems like a few of my friends and colleagues have those so called ‘dodgy fire sticks’ or IPTV devices as they are apparently called.
I was wondering what the legal position was for these devices, from the perspective of owning and using one as a viewer/subscriber?
Clearly being a distributor or vendor of such things is absolutely illegal and a criminal offence, and people seem to be jailed regularly for it, but Google doesn’t seem to be able to give a definitive answer for the subscriber. Just vague mentions of ‘copyright’ and ‘possible fines’.
Can anyone clarify? I’m curious really as my understanding of Napster/LimeWire from years ago is that there wasn’t actually any laws broken in the UK by illegally downloading content, but the media companies and copyright owners would sue you if they thought it was worthwhile to do so.
I was wondering what the legal position was for these devices, from the perspective of owning and using one as a viewer/subscriber?
Clearly being a distributor or vendor of such things is absolutely illegal and a criminal offence, and people seem to be jailed regularly for it, but Google doesn’t seem to be able to give a definitive answer for the subscriber. Just vague mentions of ‘copyright’ and ‘possible fines’.
Can anyone clarify? I’m curious really as my understanding of Napster/LimeWire from years ago is that there wasn’t actually any laws broken in the UK by illegally downloading content, but the media companies and copyright owners would sue you if they thought it was worthwhile to do so.
I must say, I'm getting fed up with paying £x/month to then only need to pay a fixed cost for a show/film on that service.
In a previous life I lived on the choppy seas, I may have to return. I can't be doing with these dodgy streaming systems, streaming is s
t enough! I'd rather it was downloaded (it can take all day for all I care) and then I can just watch it local.
In a previous life I lived on the choppy seas, I may have to return. I can't be doing with these dodgy streaming systems, streaming is s
t enough! I'd rather it was downloaded (it can take all day for all I care) and then I can just watch it local. wc98 said:
Maybe it's worth it for the tightwads but the people i know that have it are always having problems during events they are watching live. The other thing is if everyone used them where is the money going to come from to pay for stuff like F1, Moto GP, boxing and mma events etc.
I wouldn’t have one personally, as I barely watch TV, and when I do have the time, I usually just watch a film on Netflix (the only thing I subscribe to). Plus, I never watch sport or sporting events of any kind, so the whole thing would be pointless for me.But I was shocked when I looked at the price of Sky these days
If you want kids TV, movies, and you like to watch sport then it appears you could be spending a hefty amount each month. wc98 said:
Maybe it's worth it for the tightwads but the people i know that have it are always having problems during events they are watching live. The other thing is if everyone used them where is the money going to come from to pay for stuff like F1, Moto GP, boxing and mma events etc.
You'd have to fire up the electron microscope to find the violin I'd be playing.Maybe Lando and his mates wouldn't have to slum it in Monaco anymore.
It's a 95% solution for around 1% of the cost not including all the stuff you couldn't even buy digitally if you wanted to.
Edited by ChocolateFrog on Monday 19th May 17:24
I do not use a stick but do not pay a penny for sport and find places to watch it for free. I do watch catch up tv elsewhere.
Yes the streams fall away at times, but they usually recover and if you are sensible you have backups you can use.
A sport owned, taken part in and run by billionaires should not be behind paywalls, but while the sheep are happy to pay why not cream them for as much as you can.
Legally of course it is not on, but most sites use mirrors and are not hosting anything, the only real issue is I guess I am watching live tv, but as you can imagine Capita get none of my money!
Yes the streams fall away at times, but they usually recover and if you are sensible you have backups you can use.
A sport owned, taken part in and run by billionaires should not be behind paywalls, but while the sheep are happy to pay why not cream them for as much as you can.
Legally of course it is not on, but most sites use mirrors and are not hosting anything, the only real issue is I guess I am watching live tv, but as you can imagine Capita get none of my money!
Clearly it's not the "stick" but the app that is sideloaded on to it showing IPTV.
Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
TheDrownedApe said:
Clearly it's not the "stick" but the app that is sideloaded on to it showing IPTV.
Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
A pub subscription to Sky wouldn’t be anywhere near £300 a month. More like £1000-2000 a month.Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
Seeing young lads on £345,000/week and refusing to play for their employer and racing drivers with diamonds embossed into their teeth is going to encourage the use of such devices.
While I am absolutely delighted for these lads...and ladies...who cash in on this sort of payment and sponsorship, I can't find any sympathy for a TV distributor who charges in excess of £100/month to watch this guff. Now Lineaker has gone from the BBC we may get some better coverage for the licence fee. Possibly not when his annual fee is that for a month for footballers.
The sooner the scam folds up and soccer players get what they are worth, about £500/week or thereabouts, the better.
While I am absolutely delighted for these lads...and ladies...who cash in on this sort of payment and sponsorship, I can't find any sympathy for a TV distributor who charges in excess of £100/month to watch this guff. Now Lineaker has gone from the BBC we may get some better coverage for the licence fee. Possibly not when his annual fee is that for a month for footballers.
The sooner the scam folds up and soccer players get what they are worth, about £500/week or thereabouts, the better.
TheDrownedApe said:
Clearly it's not the "stick" but the app that is sideloaded on to it showing IPTV.
Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
Your pub landlord is a bit of a plumb.Our pub landlord has numerous ones plugged into his TVs showing all the content his punters want. It costs £60 a year versus the ubiquitous Sky contract at upwards of £300 a month....or so he says and is via a South African company with 24hr support, WhatsApp messaging and mirrors should any signal drop.
I'm going to be in need of something next year when quest loses the cycling show and GT highlights.
Not only is he using an illegal service and deploying it for his own commercial advantage, he's advertising the fact to all his punters.
bergclimber34 said:
Some call it stealing, I call it a risk worth taking and actually common sense, sticks and stones my lad. If you want to bankroill billionaires because they TOLD you you had to buy carry on. My conscience us very clear
It's an odd logic. Whichever supermarket you use for your shopping is worth millions or billions. Do you steal your shopping?
FredericRobinson said:
It’s undeniably stealing, justify it to yourself if you want, so will shoplifters, bank robbers and all thieves in between, but don’t try and pretend it’s not theft.
As per my earlier post, I don’t own one of these things and have no intention of owning one as I barely have time to watch ‘normal’ TV or Netflix.But, is it actually theft? Has anyone in England ever been charged with theft for downloading/viewing content from Napster/Limewire/Mega Upload, or a dodgy firestick?
Edit: you replied again while I was typing!
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff