MultiChoice takes on illegal streaming sites

lol, streaming this in a closed Discord channel will get you caught how MC?

Unless one of those (who I'm pretty sure would not) reports it to you. Else you have ZERO EVIDENCE :D
 
Last edited:
SeRpEnT said:
Now to find a free VPN or VPN with limited GB that has connection to any of those countries...
Windscribe doesn't.
Click to expand...
I've tried a few "free" VPN's. They were all too slow to be of any actual use.
You get what you pay for.
 
So last night, I was at a friend watching the game, and during the match the DSTV app went down. Within seconds guys were watching the illegal streams via various means on their phones. One guy showed me he had access to multichoice entire bouqet for free via an app. And it worked flawlessly vs the paid app being glitchy.
 
wizardofid said:
They have a license to distribute and broadcast, they don't own the copyright. Watching game of thrones on HBO, instead of DSTV, doesn't make it illegal. As you aren't infringing on HBO copyright as you are legally a subscriber to their service it is only against their terms of service, which isn't illegal.

Watching game of thrones on a DSTV stream not provided by DSTV, DSTV only has claim on using their service illegally, they can't claim copyright infringement as they don't own the copyright. The key word is they have "exclusive broadcast rights" not "exclusive copyrights". They don't own the rugby copyright, only the derivative copyright of their own stream.
Click to expand...

ToxicBunny said:
No they can't, regardless of what MC want to claim.

That is an issue between MC and the content "owner" as it were.. the end user is not part of that issue in the slightest.
Click to expand...
Guys, we've been through this before. MC's contracts include geographical rights from the suppliers (fact), they can prosecute and will have the suppliers' backing so a civil rights action is always possible.

Why they may consider it: Their parent group (also called Multichoice) also owns Irdeto, I'm sure you know they're behind the security smartcards and distribute that system worldwide, they've got an example to set.
When they started they also only got much of the content we take for granted due to agreeing with American studios to do their best to constantly challenge piracy (all facts).

When it comes to why not, in this case not fact but rather as I see it - Even if they can get info past a VPN option, they can never prove that the end user knew of their rights entitlement, nor that user's intentions. Last I heard most use a VPN for privacy concerns.

Argue away though, there's no ways to make a solid case as it's never reached the courts.
Still best IMHO to stick to an otherwise legal service, then even less of a practical case is possible.
 
Last edited:
Brian_G said:
Guys, we've been through this before. MC's contracts include geographical rights from the suppliers (fact), they can prosecute and will have the suppliers' backing so a civil rights action is always possible.

Why they may consider it: Their parent group (also called Multichoice) also owns Irdeto, I'm sure you know they're behind the security smartcards and distribute that system worldwide, they've got an example to set.
When they started they also only got much of the content we take for granted due to agreeing with American studios to do their best to constantly challenge piracy (all facts).

When it comes to why not, in this case not fact but rather as I see it - Even if they can get info past a VPN option, they can never prove that the end user knew of their rights entitlement, nor that user's intentions. Last I heard most use a VPN for privacy concerns.

Argue away though, there's no ways to make a solid case as it's never reached the courts.
Still best IMHO to stick to a legal service, then even less of a practical case is possible.
Click to expand...

No they can't. Period, Finsih and Klaar. Regardless of what your mate at MC told you before, he was lying.

The best they can do is institute a civil proceeding to recover their direct losses which is not criminal therefore not resulting from an illegal action.
 
  • Like
Reactions: OCP
ToxicBunny said:
No they can't. Period, Finsih and Klaar. Regardless of what your mate at MC told you before, he was lying.

The best they can do is institute a civil proceeding to recover their direct losses which is not criminal therefore not resulting from an illegal action.
Click to expand...
We're actually saying the same thing.
And it's still considered illegal to contravene granted civil rights, rights that the owner has given MC and that is "respected" by our laws.

I've been in the industry for many years, I'm certain.
 
Brian_G said:
We're actually saying the same thing.
And it's still considered illegal to contravene granted civil rights, rights that the owner has given MC and that is "respected" by our laws.

I've been in the industry for many years, I'm certain.
Click to expand...
They have a broadcasting right and therefore can only claim copyright infringement on their own derivative broadcast... Not on anyone else's.
The owner doesn't hand over the copyright for a piece of work to MC, merely the exclusive right to broadcast it in a region.

As an end user we are not party to that agreement.
 
rh1 said:
So last night, I was at a friend watching the game, and during the match the DSTV app went down. Within seconds guys were watching the illegal streams via various means on their phones. One guy showed me he had access to multichoice entire bouqet for free via an app. And it worked flawlessly vs the paid app being glitchy.
Click to expand...
That app sounds interesting. Not that I would ever use such thing
 
ToxicBunny said:
They have a broadcasting right and therefore can only claim copyright infringement on their own derivative broadcast... Not on anyone else's.
Click to expand...
I'll leave it at this - if they have sole broadcast rights to an area, and the supplier has sole ownership rights, then the letter of the law offers them protection... even though they have little to buggerall chance of making it practical.
 
Brian_G said:
I'll leave it at this - if they have sole broadcast rights to an area, and the supplier has sole ownership rights, then the letter of the law offers them protection... even though they have little to buggerall chance of making it practical.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't.

The only person who can do something about an end user streaming the content from a source other than MC is the owner, not MC. MC have no party in that.
 
ToxicBunny said:
No it doesn't.

The only person who can do something about an end user streaming the content from a source other than MC is the owner, not MC. MC have no party in that.
Click to expand...
Okay, now I understand the issue being looked at.

It's a fact that MC, many of the American studios, and some of the sports bodies (no idea of details here) work closely together to counteract piracy in Africa (more of a worry than SA, BTW), to the point of working as one entity.
 
Brian_G said:
Okay, now I understand the issue.
It's a fact that MC, many of the American studios, and some of the sports bodies (no idea of details here) work closely together to counteract piracy in Africa (more of a worry than SA, BTW), to the point of working as one entity.
Click to expand...

They may do that without a doubt... but without some existing legal "handing over" of copyright of a work to MC by the owner, they have zero say in the issue at all unless the feed being pirated is their own specific one.
 
ToxicBunny said:
No it doesn't.

The only person who can do something about an end user streaming the content from a source other than MC is the owner, not MC. MC have no party in that.
Click to expand...
Yep.

And if you want to know how the tracking works, companies like Irdeto embed certain items in the distributed streams. This lets them track down WHO has the leak for the data stream. But as TB says, the CONTENT OWNER has that right, not a distributor.
 
Brian_G said:
Okay, now I understand the issue being looked at.

It's a fact that MC, many of the American studios, and some of the sports bodies (no idea of details here) work closely together to counteract piracy in Africa (more of a worry than SA, BTW), to the point of working as one entity.
Click to expand...
How is watching a stream broadcast by ITV, or even better, World Rugby themselves illegal? Surely the only thing illegal (on a commercial law front) would be someone else broadcasting in SA?
 
Speedster said:
How is watching a stream broadcast by ITV, or even better, World Rugby themselves illegal? Surely the only thing illegal (on a commercial law front) would be someone else broadcasting in SA?
Click to expand...

Even if it is an illegal streaming site, so long as its not MC's stream being distributed, then MC aren't party to it and the content owner has to do something about it.
 
Speedster said:
How is watching a stream broadcast by ITV, or even better, World Rugby themselves illegal? Surely the only thing illegal (on a commercial law front) would be someone else broadcasting in SA?
Click to expand...
It's the whole geographical side of the civil rights argument, which gets thinner every day.
Enough for MC to claim it's illegal, and if we were them I recon we'd also choose to think so.

But again, seems impossible to make a practical offense. Not that I would stake my life on that...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X