Everything developers are not allowed to do with DStv and Showmax

[Jamie McKane]

Everything developers are not allowed to do with DStv and Showmax

Hobbyist Kodi app developer Matt Huisman recently faced intellectual property enforcement action from Naspers due to add-ons he created for DStv Now and Showmax.

While MultiChoice does not directly get involved in enforcement, sister company Irdeto acted on its behalf by sending takedown notices to Huisman and Github.

 

[Fulcrum29]

In my personal opinion, Naspers (or Irdeto/Multichoice) is handling this improperly. Matt Huisman created access, you know, ‘ease’, more accessibility. Kudos! Well done, Matt!

How I see it, many content publishers are against Kodi and it likes, due to them being unable to monetise it, unable to monetise means that is anti-corporate. What did Naspers do? They made Matt a corporate villain and therein is the ugly corporate truth.

They requested GitHub and PayPal to block (and suspend) his donation stream and his repositories by takedown notices.

Naspers is so anti-competition, that they ‘hate’ outside ideas and execution.

This alone would have me never ever engage with them as they practically want to own you.

An immoral decision by Naspers. People want choice, they want options, YOU should have embraced Matt and rewarded his initiative.

 

[Slootvreter]

In my personal opinion, Naspers (or Irdeto/Multichoice) is handling this improperly. Matt Huisman created access, you know, ‘ease’, more accessibility. Kudos! Well done, Matt!

How I see it, many content publishers are against Kodi and it likes, due to them being unable to monetise it, unable to monetise means that is anti-corporate. What did Naspers do? They made Matt a corporate villain and therein is the ugly corporate truth.

They requested GitHub and PayPal to block (and suspend) his donation stream and his repositories by takedown notices.

Naspers is so anti-competition, that they ‘hate’ outside ideas and execution.

This alone would have me never ever engage with them as they practically want to own you.

An immoral decision by Naspers. People want choice, they want options, YOU should have embraced Matt and rewarded his initiative.

They should have indeed.

I don't have much respect at all for MultiChoice/DSTV.

 

[xrapidx]

People should just let the company die - don't support them, don't support their apps

 

[me_]

I understand why MultiChoice/DSTV reacted the way they did and why they need the protections.
They purchase media with very specific usage rights - this is why not all shows on DSTV are available on Catchup - they can't get the licensing for this.

The DSTV Now app stores anything that is downloaded encrypted on disk to ensure it can't just be copied. This would be to meet various licensing obligations to ensure the content is not available perpetually.

If anyone were to use a custom plugin to access DSTV Now, etc, then they could effectively use it to rip the content in which case DSTV could be held liable or be restricted from purchasing content going forward.

 

[Polymathic]

In my personal opinion, Naspers (or Irdeto/Multichoice) is handling this improperly. Matt Huisman created access, you know, ‘ease’, more accessibility. Kudos! Well done, Matt!

How I see it, many content publishers are against Kodi and it likes, due to them being unable to monetise it, unable to monetise means that is anti-corporate. What did Naspers do? They made Matt a corporate villain and therein is the ugly corporate truth.

They requested GitHub and PayPal to block (and suspend) his donation stream and his repositories by takedown notices.

Naspers is so anti-competition, that they ‘hate’ outside ideas and execution.

This alone would have me never ever engage with them as they practically want to own you.

An immoral decision by Naspers. People want choice, they want options, YOU should have embraced Matt and rewarded his initiative.

Naspers is a 20th century company with a 20th century mindset.

 

[Gary Waterworth]

Doesn't affect me anymore. Cancelled completely a while back. Other providers provide a much better and cheaper service as long as you don't want sport

 

[LCBXX]

MC and Co are a private company and I support them to take whichever steps they need to have their private property rights protected.

That said, when they start peddling to Government about private competition resulting in potential job-losses and calling for Government to intervene with regulation, which it lobbies for their benefit, they need to fsck right off.

 

[Fulcrum29]

MC and Co are a private company and I support them to take whichever steps they need to have their private property rights protected.

That said, when they start peddling to Government about private competition resulting in potential job-losses and calling for Government to intervene with regulation, which it lobbies for their benefit, they need to fsck right off.

My issues...

1) Matt Huisman used their intellectual property to create alternative access to their streaming mediums.
2) Matt Huisman can only collect donations by his visitors' own discretion.
3) Matt Huisman didn't create competition by using their intellectual property.

I struggle to see where Matt Huisman abused their intellectual property.

 

[LCBXX]

My issues...

1) Matt Huisman used their intellectual property to create alternative access to their streaming mediums.
2) Matt Huisman can only collect donations by his visitors' own discretion.
3) Matt Huisman didn't create competition by using their intellectual property.

I struggle to see where Matt Huisman abused their intellectual property.

No-one is saying there was abuse. MC and Co are within their rights to determine how their product is to be used. I don't like it but I get their MC's point.

 

[ThinkCentre]

Naspers is a 20th century company with a 20th century mindset.

That is why their subscribers are reducing in numbers and Netflix are killing them!

 

[Fulcrum29]

No-one is saying there was abuse. MC and Co are within their rights to determine how their product is to be used. I don't like it but I get their MC's point.

By their action, they suspended his PayPal account. An account which is used to receive and send monies. They are to determine whether he is enabled to receive and send monies?

By takedown notice, that is an action in response to court orders or an allegation that content is illegal. Yes, they are stating that he abused their intellectual property and by that action made it a public statement.

 

[LCBXX]

By their action, they suspended his PayPal account. An account which is used to receive and send monies. They are to determine whether he is enabled to receive and send monies?

By takedown notice, that is an action in response to court orders or an allegation that content is illegal. Yes, they are stating that he abused their intellectual property and by that action made it a public statement.

I do not know the specific details of their case or why it would be enough to get the guy's Paypal suspended. I am simply cautious to assume bullying or foul-play on the part of MC just because they are generally disliked.

 

[Fulcrum29]

I do not know the specific details of their case or why it would be enough to get the guy's Paypal suspended. I am simply cautious to assume bullying or foul-play on the part of MC just because they are generally disliked.

Matt Huisman published the two notices he received,

https://www.matthuisman.nz/p/take-down-notices-dstv.html

The identified content provides an interface for these Applications to be used via the “KODI” Application, which is not authorized by Mutlchoice Africa Limited.

The infringing content is being distributed through a repository at http://k.mjh.nz.

At these locations, our client’ Copyrighted content is being made available without authorization.

Additionally, these Applications circumvent security protocols set in place by ‘DSTV’ and ‘Showmax’.

Multichoice Africa Limited controls the exclusive rights to display, transmit and reproduce all Multichoice transmissions and content including, but not limited to, the transmissions of all DSTV, DSTV Now, SuperSport, and M-Net television channels via all mediums including, but not limited to, transmission over IP. Rebroadcasting, retransmitting or replicating MultiChoice’s content without their authorization, is a breach of their rights and is unlawful.

Multichoice owns the broadcast rights in Nigeria and all Sub-Saharan Africa for amongst other premium sporting competitions; UEFA Champions League, UEFA Europa League, Premier League, La Liga and Serie A
We ask that you immediately remove the content from the website https://www.matthuisman.nz/ and repository http://k.mjh.nz.

To post the DSTV Now's permitted use terms,

7 Permitted Use of DStv Now

7.1 The User may access and use DStv Now only for the User’s individual private, noncommercial use, and in accordance with these DStv Now Terms & Conditions. 7
7.2 The Content and all other materials or software which MultiChoice makes available on DStv Now are either owned by, or licensed to MultiChoice and/or MultiChoice Affiliates, and are protected by intellectual property law. 7.3 The User may not use DStv Now, its Contents, or any aspect thereof, in any manner that constitutes a violation of any law (including intellectual property law, and including statutory law and the common law), or an infringement of MultiChoice’s rights (including the intellectual property rights) or those of MultiChoice Affiliates, MultiChoice licensors or any third party.
7.4 The User may not reproduce, modify, copy, transfer (to any person or onto any Device, whether corporeal or incorporeal), perform, transmit, broadcast, upload or redistribute the Contents, whether for the User’s personal use or commercial gain. For the avoidance of any doubt, the User may view the Contents only on the Device which the User uses to access DStv Now.
7.5 In relation to any systems which MultiChoice provides to the User, the User may not –
7.5.1 modify, disassemble, decompile or reverse engineer these systems;
7.5.2 sub-license, distribute, rent, sell or otherwise transfer them to any third party;
7.5.3 copy or reproduce the systems; or
7.5.4 circumvent or disable any technology features or measures in the systems.
7.6 The User may not hack, reverse engineer, decompile, modify, tamper with or otherwise compromise the security of any digital rights management system or any other security or content protection systems used for or in relation to the provision of any service through DStv Now.
7.7 The User may not use DStv Now, or any of its services, in any manner that causes it or any aspect thereof to be interrupted or damaged.
7.8 If the User breaches these DStv Now Terms & Conditions, the User will be responsible for any loss, damage and expense which MultiChoice may suffer, or claims against MultiChoice that arise directly or indirectly from, or in relation to User’s breach of these DStv Now Terms & Conditions.

and according to this Mybroadband article,

https://mybroadband.co.za/news/broa...-party-dstv-now-and-showmax-kodi-add-ons.html

“I had no correspondence from Irdeto except for the takedown notices.”

this is an allegation as the notices were served by Partick O’Connor who represents Irdeto. This in my opinion reserve as a takedown abuse.

According to Irdeto, Matt Huisman produced Multichoice copyrighted content and that he circumvented Multichoice's security protocols.

Nowhere can I note in which ecosystems these applications may be used or limited to. The Kodi add-on was used to access the Multichoice, DStv Now, medium. The accessed medium is broadcasting and transmitting the content with the subscriber's own authorisation to give permission to Multichoice (DStv Now) to authorise the content. Nowhere is Matt Huisman's Kodi add-on taking ownership or piracy (unauthorised use) over the content or bypassing the authorisation. The Kodi add-on is a device in its own respect like any other device which is used to access DStv Now. Irrc, you may use up to 4 devices with 2 broadcasting simultaneously at a time.

Circumventing security protocols, which security protocols? The user still authorises with their own account which is subscription based... So... Multichoice say that the application is circumventing security protocols, why don't they work with Matt Huisman to patch these security protocols to abide by the data protection laws like GDPR or are they to incompetent or are they using this as an excuse to support their takedown notices?

The takedown notice is as vague as can be. I don't experience where Matt Huisman's Kodi add-on is breaching the Permitted Use.

Why they served PayPal with a takedown notice to suspend Matt's account, essentially blocking him to receive any donation or income in regard to any other developments or contract, in his PayPal account, as he didn't request to be compensated in regard to the Kodi add-on. Where Irdeto may argue Matt's GitHub repository, to indicate any abuse (which they didn't correspond to Matt), the PayPal takedown request was malicious IMHO.

This has nothing to do with them being disliked, it is how they behaved.

 

[quovadis]

The whole matter is quite laughable. Shame, the dinosaur with their “proprietary box” doesn’t understand the convenience their paying customers want.

 

[DrJohnZoidberg]

Quite a dick move of their part. They really could have just first contacted Matt and asked nicely to please remove the project from GH and to stop distributing it. I am quite positive he would have obliged and it would have been a very painless process for all involved. Instead they went with the "burn it with fire" route, which is not really excusable for such an extremely small issue.

 

[ekske1]

Everything developers are not allowed to do with DStv and Showmax

Hobbyist Kodi app developer Matt Huisman recently faced intellectual property enforcement action from Naspers due to add-ons he created for DStv Now and Showmax.

While MultiChoice does not directly get involved in enforcement, sister company Irdeto acted on its behalf by sending takedown notices to Huisman and Github.

south african dinosaurs wins!

 

[quovadis]

Instead they went with the "burn it with fire" route, which is not really excusable for such an extremely small issue.

They did the exact same thing back in the day with their TV guide data which, at that stage, people were using for a Windows Media Center frontend which controlled a DStv decoder via an IR sender for convenience.

 

[HennieWelkom]

My issues...

1) Matt Huisman used their intellectual property to create alternative access to their streaming mediums.
2) Matt Huisman can only collect donations by his visitors' own discretion.
3) Matt Huisman didn't create competition by using their intellectual property.

I struggle to see where Matt Huisman abused their intellectual property.

The fact that Matt did not make any money does not make intellectual property theft somehow legal. Just because you stole a car and did not make money from your theft, does not make you any less of a thief.

That is a widespread myth that intellectual property is only stolen when a profit is made, simply not true.

 

[Fulcrum29]

The fact that Matt did not make any money does not make intellectual property theft somehow legal. Just because you stole a car and did not make money from your theft, does not make you any less of a thief.

That is a widespread myth that intellectual property is only stolen when a profit is made, simply not true.

How did he steal their intellectual property, what is your argument, and why takedown his PayPal account within your given context?