Posts by Prophet

  • Man Likely to Sacrifice Himself Testing Streaming Piracy Limits

    A man is preparing a legal battle to find out where the boundaries lie when it comes to offering "fully loaded" Kodi TV devices in the UK. Brian Thompson, who is being taken to court by his local council, says he expects to lose the case. And barring a miracle that's exactly what's going to happen.


    f1c4a9c4bd9f1.jpg


    Year in, year out, people with an interest in Internet file-sharing discuss what is permissible under current legislation. It’s an important exercise if people are to stay on the right side of the law.


    These discussions have historically taken place among enthusiasts but with the advent of easily accessible piracy tools such as Popcorn Time, modified Kodi, and Showbox, the man in the street his now taking part.


    One individual that has provoked interest among the public is UK-based Brian ‘Tomo’ Thompson, who was previously raided by police and Trading Standards after selling “fully loaded” Android boxes from his shop in the north-east.


    Thompson is now being prosecuted by his local council. He says he intends to fight back to discover where the boundaries lie for sellers of similar devices.


    “All I want to know is whether I am doing anything illegal. I know it’s a grey area but I want it in black and white,” he said this week.


    “I’m prepared to accept what the court decides but at the moment as far as I’m concerned I’m not breaking the law.”


    There are many people who share Thompson’s opinion and there’s no shortage of supporters willing the Middlesbrough man on to victory against what some see as a vindictive prosecution.


    But while this is indeed an attack on the little guy, Thompson is almost certainly about to sacrifice himself for little to no gain. Admittedly the case isn’t completely straightforward, but a conviction seems almost inevitable. Here’s why.


    Hardware devices – whether a computer, Android phone, tablet, or in this case, a set-top box – are 100% legal. Anyone can buy, sell or trade such devices almost anywhere in the world with no issues.


    Thompson knows this, describing the blank devices as “just like a big USB stick.” While not a great analogy, for the purposes of the law, that will suffice.


    On its own, the Kodi media player is also 100% legal. Anyone can download, install, use or give away the software with no problems whatsoever. Installing Kodi on an Android device and selling it is legal almost everywhere and definitely legal in the UK.


    If Thompson had only done the above – sell Android set-top boxes with basic Kodi installed – he would have no issues with the police or indeed Trading Standards. Individually and combined, the software and devices are completely non-infringing.


    However, Thompson did not stop there. What he did was sold Android boxes with Kodi installed, plus all the extra third-party addons that allow people to view infringing movies, TV shows, live sports, plus all the other ‘goodies’ that buyers of these boxes demand. His adverts on Facebook make that very clear.


    b91b0373c93c2b05a1658d003.png


    It is these third-party addons that make what Thompson did unlawful. Selling devices and/or software designed for infringing copying purposes is illegal in the UK. Encouraging others to break the law never goes in a defendant’s favor either.


    According to The Northern Echo, since he was raided in March, Thompson has been selling boxes that do not have the addons installed.


    “These boxes are available from all over the place, not just me, but it’s the downloading of software to watch channels that is apparently causing the problem,” he said.


    But despite not offering them himself, the businessman continued to encourage his customers to install the addons on devices he supplied, despite being targeted twice previously by the authorities.


    The advert below is currently available on Thompson’s Facebook page and many of the channels are subscription-only affairs. Judges rarely look kindly on people encouraging others to break the law, especially where big corporate interests are the perceived victims.


    171de82de027858ab7.png


    Finally, there is another issue that could negatively affect Thompson’s defense. In June 2015, a company called Geeky Kit was raided near to Thompson’s premises. That company was also targeted for selling fully-loaded Android boxes. That company’s storefront at the time of the raid is shown below.


    a4732a1dc21de50f6c9e2.jpg


    The signage clearly states that items being sold within are being offered on the basis that they provide access to subscription TV package channels for free. Geeky Kit’s premises remained closed in the weeks that followed the raid but in August came a surprise announcement from Thompson.


    c9485c3cb2c5ab6430a.png


    Thompson is now set to appear before Magistrates’ Court next week in what will be a first-of-its-kind case. Much will hinge on the outcome, for Thompson and others in his position.


    “This may have to go to the crown court and then it may go all the way to the European court, but I want to make a point with this and I want to make it easier for people to know what it legal and what isn’t,” he said. “I expect it go against me but at least I will know where I stand.”


    While some definitive legal clarity in this area would help thousands of people to understand where the boundaries lie with these boxes, one can’t help but think that this is a particularly bad case for testing the waters.


    Whether it will go entirely against Thompson next week remains to be seen, but if he wins the case and boxes with addons are declared legal to sell, it will be nothing short of a miracle. Companies like Sky, Premier League, and the Federation Against Copyright Theft, will rightly go into meltdown.


    “It is the first case of its kind in the world so it is going to be interesting,” Thompson concludes.


    He’s not wrong there.

  • Yahoo expected to confirm data breach

    1f49a216b0c12202c8bbe8.jpg


    Yahoo expected to confirm data breach... Hundreds of Millions of users could be affected


    Kara Swisher of recode is reporting today that Yahoo are poised to confirm a massive data breach of its services, according to several sources close to the situation.


    Whilst these sources would not confirm the extent of the breach, they noted it is widespread, and serious.


    Earlier in the year, Yahoo said it was investigating a data breach where it was suspected that hackers had access to 200 million user accounts and were selling these online. "It's as bad as that" said one source, "Worse, really"


    The announcement, which is due to come this week, could be very damaging to the new owners of Yahoo's core services, Verizon.


    An infamous cyber criminal named "Peace" said on a website that he was selling credentials of 200 million Yahoo users from 2012 on the dark web for just over £1,500.


    At the time, Yahoo was "aware of the claim" but the company declined to corroborate any claims of the breach.


    Rumours of Data breaches are common news items these days, however, given Kara Swisher's position within Tech Journalism, this is as good as confirmed.


    What will be the implications of such a breach? I'm sure Yahoo will have more to say on that in the coming week.

  • 10 Years in Prison in the UK For Online Pirates a Step Closer

    The UK Government's Digital Economy Bill has moved a step closer to becoming law after its second reading in Parliament. With unanimous support, the current two-year maximum custodial sentence for online piracy is almost certain to increase to a decade. However, the reading also covered other familiar ground - pressure on Google to do something about piracy.


    In an effort to control the prevalence of online piracy, numerous criminal actions against file-sharers and file-sharing site operators have already taken place in the UK. However, these prosecutions have not been straightforward.


    Due to UK copyright law allowing for custodial sentences of ‘just’ two years for online offenses, anti-piracy groups such as the Federation Against Copyright Theft have chosen to pursue their own private prosecutions. These have largely taken place under legislation designed for those who have committed fraud, rather than the more appropriate offense of copyright infringement.


    Physical pirates (CDs, DVDs) can be jailed for up to 10 years under current legislation. During the past few years, there have been lobbying efforts for this punishment to apply both on and offline. That resulted in a UK Government announcement last year indicating that it would move to increase the maximum prison sentence for online copyright infringement to ten years.


    This proposal was detailed in a draft of the Digital Economy Bill published in July. If passed into law, it would amend the relevant section of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.


    That likelihood increased yesterday with the 2nd Reading of the Digital Economy Bill in the House of Commons. Karen Bradley, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, was in attendance. The MP, who was appointed in July, spoke strongly in favor of strict copyright enforcement.


    “We will help businesses from attacks on their intellectual property. Burglars can be sentenced to ten years in prison, but the criminal gangs that are making vast sums of money through exploiting the online creations of others only face a two-year sentence. We will increase this to ten,” Bradley said.


    Interestingly, Bradley mentioned a convicted pirate by name. Paul Mahoney ran streaming portal FastPassTV and discussion and linking forum BedroomMedia. After being raided in 2011, the Northern Ireland-based man was sentenced to four years in jail under the Fraud Act, two more than the maximum he would’ve received under copyright legislation.


    “Criminals like Paul Mahoney, who profited by almost £300,000 and cost industry millions by facilitating access to illegal films on the Internet, need to be sent a clear message,” Bradley said.


    “We need to ensure that enforcement agencies and their partners have the right set of tools to tackle all types of piracy, which is why this clause is so important.”


    When the increase to ten years was first reported, some news outlets suggested that regular file-sharers could be subjected to the decade-long sentence. That was addressed in Parliament yesterday by Labour MP Thangam Debbonaire, who welcomed the move but sought assurances that the casual downloader wouldn’t be targeted.


    “I am pleased that clause 26 amends the current legislation on copyright to bring online criminal penalties for copyright infringement in line with off-line penalties, with a maximum of 10 years’ imprisonment. This will target anyone who infringes copyright in order to make a commercial gain,” he said.


    “However, I wish to stress to hon. Members and to members of the public that this is not to catch out people who download music and unwittingly download or stream something illegal. I want to make that clear in adding my support to this measure. As far as I understand it, it targets the criminals who make money from distributing music to which they do not have the rights.”


    Culture Secretary Karen Bradley confirmed that was indeed the case.


    Speaking in support of the amendment, Conservative MP John Whittingdale said he was “delighted” that online and offline penalties will be equalized but said that more still needs to be done. Unsurprisingly, given the current environment, Google was again the target.


    “The Conservative party manifesto stated that we would put pressure on search engines to try to prevent illegal sites from coming up at the top of a search. I know that round-table discussions have been taking place for a considerable time, but it is a matter of great concern that no significant progress has yet been made,” Whittingdale said.


    “In the most recent attempt to find out whether or not there had been an improvement, a Google search was made for ‘Ed Sheeran Photograph download’, with ‘Photograph’ being one of Ed Sheeran’s most recent songs. Only one of the top 10 listings involved a legal site, and the legal site was YouTube, which, of course, is owned by Google.”


    In response, Labour MP Dr Rupa Huq offered his thoughts on how that might be mitigated in future.


    “[John Whittingdale] said that Ed Sheeran’s song was available on illegal platforms. Does he agree that technology companies, and platforms such as Google and YouTube, should be compelled to list only legal sites?” Huq said.


    “At present the pirates are sometimes listed higher up than legal sites, and our British musicians who contribute, I believe, £4 billion annually to the economy are losing out as a consequence.”


    Whittingdale wasn’t convinced of Huq’s solution, but agreed that much more needs to be done.


    “I think it would be unrealistic to expect Google to establish whether every single site was legal or illegal. What it can do is react when illegal sites are brought to its attention,” the MP said.


    “[Google] does de-list, but new sites then appear immediately. There have been a vast number of complaints from rights owners about particular sites, but they should tweak their algorithms so that those sites no longer appear at the top of the search listings. Measures of that kind have been under discussion for months and months, but the problem still exists.”


    Whittingdale added that there may be a need to include a legal provision which would encourage service providers to establish some kind of voluntary code.


    “[T]here may well be a case for legislation, because we cannot allow Google and other search providers to go on allowing people access to illegal sites,” he said.


    The Bill will now move to Committee and Report stages, before moving to its Third Reading. It will then pass to readings in the House of Lords before undergoing amendments and the final stage of Royal Assent.

  • 5 EPL Games - Tandberg

    10E - 11305 -H 30000



    English Premier League ECM KEY ACTIVE
    Service 1 - Bournemouth v WBA
    T 01 1839 67392044053A9700


    Service 2 - Burnley v Hull City
    T 01 183A 70B5118415394400


    Service 3 - Middlesborough v Palace
    T 01 183B 737AFC24357EE900


    Service 4 - Stoke City v Spurs
    T 01 183C 9EE1C959DABDBB00


    Service 5 - WHU v Watford
    T 01 183D 5D243DE3E2934600