DStv illegal streaming site blocking proposal could have several unintended consequences

I am not unable to stream live TV on any browser. As soon as you click on a channel it just jumps to recent channels screen and goes no further. Tried Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Brave.
 
wingnut771 said:
I am not unable to stream live TV on any browser. As soon as you click on a channel it just jumps to recent channels screen and goes no further. Tried Chrome, Firefox, Edge and Brave.
Click to expand...

They apparently had some sort of "massive" outage yesterday, so their paying subscribers, "kissed" more than a days worth of paid viewing goodbye. For which they will not be compensated or credited for.
 
wingnut771 said:
This has been happening for me since the SA-NZ game on sat.

Luckily, Kodi DSTV app still works.
Click to expand...

Had 3 different family members phone me last night to hear, if I knew what was going on. One of them, later phoned support, and was told, the issue, would be "sorted" out today - I do hope so
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
Had 3 different family members phone me last night to hear, if I knew what was going on. One of them, later phoned support, and was told, the issue, would be "sorted" out today - I do hope so
Click to expand...
I've also had 3 calls from them this week trying to sell me something.
 
They looked at Italy's "Shield" concept to protect LA Liga and went 'we want that' but they didn't bother looking any further into the fact that legal sites get blocked, they even managed to block access to Cloudfare. Added that site blocking doesn't work, it's like trying to nail jelly to a wall. Block one site and 10 others take its place
 
These a*holes can't even get their own streaming service running for more than 10 minutes at a time (since yesterday), after which it pops up with a lost connection message & for you to check your network settings.

Meanwhile, every other internet service running perfectly well.

MC / DStv - sort your own house out before attempting to ruin others.

Furthermore, yesterday on Android TV the profile icons were mysteriously missing so had to reinstall the DStv app and relink for it to work again.

Behind the scenes they're probably testing already trying to break the internet, and screwing up their own systems in the process.
 
elf_lord_ZC5 said:
Had 3 different family members phone me last night to hear, if I knew what was going on. One of them, later phoned support, and was told, the issue, would be "sorted" out today - I do hope so
Click to expand...

Just checked it (on Family package) - still freezing after 11 or 12 minutes.

Tried rewinding a couple of minutes which worked, then back to live and... fail.
 
konfab said:
Change copyright law such that it expires 10 years after production of an item, and in exchange there are dedicated intellectual property courts.

That is a very fair trade IMO. All content older than 10 years old is effectively public domain in South Africa. Anything newer than that is very heavily protected.

In terms of software, have it 10 years, but include the provision that the software keeps its copyright provided that it is actively maintained and usable in full capacity.

Let's say you release an online game, and it has a loyal and dedicated community that relies on services you maintain. If you maintain those services for 20 years, your game has copyright protection for the 20 years, plus 10 years after you cease online services.

This actually encourages the production and enjoyment of cultural products, without turning everyone into criminals. An author **cough*** GRRM **cough** cannot just man-birth a couple of good books and expect them to print money for the rest of their lives. They actually have to produce more content.

Still a big fan of trademarks, which is how I think authors should protect their work. In this utopia, an author would rather get a trademark that they can attach to their work which indicates it is theirs. This gives them the ability to monetise their work by ensuring the work that is purchased is an authentic representation of their work.
Click to expand...
Copyright is the life time of the author plus an X amount of years after death. Which is completely fair. A music artist for example has a career of several decades in most cases, and earn royalties from airplay, performances ect. If the copyright expires artists get nothing ZERO.......... Additional length after death is so that if the particular artist has dependents are looked after as well in some capacity. After death ranges from 50 to 70 years, it is quite long, but south african copyright is 50 years from the year it was created even after death, which is quite fair.

Other regions is life of the author plus x amount of years, it is setup like this in case of an untimely death, as you know it has happened before.

Movies work similar, however is some cases deals are struck in the form of residuals and royalties and these cases often the salary for the work is often at lot smaller.

In other cases not all funding and production costs are fully recovered and might take several years.

It is a daft idea period.....the unintended knock on effect this will have is quite broad in that it will mean costs would increase drastically to own or view a copyright in the shorten lifespan of the copyright, the cost to license said copyright will also drastically increase.

Additional it may also result in artist not producing new copyrights at all, what is the point of making something you won't have any control over how it is used or misused in your own lifetime.

Your idea is daft and short sighted, you consider copyrights a blight and unfortunately it is a necessary evil, without them it would stifle any sort of ingenuity, expression and imagination.

As a digital artist there would be no reason for me to create content if someone else is just able to copy exactly what I did or alter it slightly slap a new copyright on the derivative and I get nothing for the original work I slaved over for hours and hours.

It is absolutely horrible and fcking stupid idea.........
 
wizardofid said:
Copyright is the life time of the author plus an X amount of years after death. Which is completely fair. A music artist for example has a career of several decades in most cases, and earn royalties from airplay, performances ect. If the copyright expires artists get nothing ZERO.......... Additional length after death is so that if the particular artist has dependents are looked after as well in some capacity. After death ranges from 50 to 70 years, it is quite long, but south african copyright is 50 years from the year it was created even after death, which is quite fair.

Other regions is life of the author plus x amount of years, it is setup like this in case of an untimely death, as you know it has happened before.

Movies work similar, however is some cases deals are struck in the form of residuals and royalties and these cases often the salary for the work is often at lot smaller.

In other cases not all funding and production costs are fully recovered and might take several years.

It is a daft idea period.....the unintended knock on effect this will have is quite broad in that it will mean costs would increase drastically to own or view a copyright in the shorten lifespan of the copyright, the cost to license said copyright will also drastically increase.

Additional it may also result in artist not producing new copyrights at all, what is the point of making something you won't have any control over how it is used or misused in your own lifetime.

Your idea is daft and short sighted, you consider copyrights a blight and unfortunately it is a necessary evil, without them it would stifle any sort of ingenuity, expression and imagination.

As a digital artist there would be no reason for me to create content if someone else is just able to copy exactly what I did or alter it slightly slap a new copyright on the derivative and I get nothing for the original work I slaved over for hours and hours.

It is absolutely horrible and fcking stupid idea.........
Click to expand...
Why does a patent on a lifesaving drug that cost millions to develop and test only last 25 years. Yet the happy birthday jingle, written in 1893 gets a hundred of years of government protected monopoly.

Is that logical? That is the system you are defending.

10 years is easily enough to get a return on investment for creative media, considering that 89% of all money made, is made within 4 years.
I studied 328 feature films which received funding awards from the BFI (or its predecessor the UK Film Council). By piecing together the annual accounts we are able to get a picture of when money flowed back to the BFI.

Over this fifteen-year period, just over a third of all the money came in during the first year of recoupment, with 89% being received within the first four years.
Click to expand...

1726151316107.png
https://stephenfollows.com/how-long-does-a-film-take-to-recoup/

As for artists being worried about their work being misused: As I said previously. Artists should get a right to their brand. If someone wants to make an official adaptation of a book, they would need to use the artist's copyright, elsewise the work cannot be classified as an official adaptation.

That alone has value. Same thing with books etc. Getting a copy of the book endorsed by the author is something that has value for people who care about it.

The problem with the current system is that it was completely shaped by Disney. That copyright lifetime was extended multiple times as a result of lobbying from Disney.
 
Brian_G said:
Just checked it (on Family package) - still freezing after 11 or 12 minutes.

Tried rewinding a couple of minutes which worked, then back to live and... fail.
Click to expand...

End of day - sorted.
Impressive (for them)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X