MultiChoice takes on illegal streaming sites

[Kosmik]

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?

Commercial law is correct, relates to regional reception but its again more about the "distributor" broadcasting to a incorrect region. Technically ITV could get into trouble if we were able to access directly but most of those streams are copied from ITV and re-packaged for the "paid IPTV services".

 

[Kosmik]

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...

It as illegal as VCR tapes and cassette tapes.

 

[Brian_G]

It as illegal as VCR tapes and cassette tapes.

Maybe even less than that.

 

[backstreetboy]

I would never think of using NordVPN and watching the Bokke play in 1080P on ITV.com or the ITVX app for free with no buffering. That would be immoral and highly unrecommended. Don't use those services. Pay DSTV R799. It's the right thing to do.

I won't. Nord was hacked and it took them a year and a half to disclose it.

 

[Kosmik]

Maybe even less than that.

Its a consumer argument. Stolen "goods" can be confiscated but often the consumer is not penalized in other ways. Different story for distribution and sale, i.e.: where there is revenue or proceeds from a crime. Those are the ones who are targeted and prosecuted. Consuming a stream has no physical medium, not even a stored one. If you ask the old soaks, they'll tell you, even the copyright holders uses to send a "please sir" email requesting deletion of content in 24hrs.

 

[wizardofid]

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.

No need to repeat what everyone else has said since. Will however add if they want to enforce any copyright on behalf of someone that has given permission, south african law will apply as the party making the claim is south african, anything other than just "watching" some thing it is a civil matter.

Nope the part in bold South African courts already in the 80's and 90's in copyright cases pointed out you don't have to be aware that an infringement of a copyright (culpa) has taken place, even if the infringement was intentional (dolo).

 

[Brian_G]

Nope the part in bold South African courts already in the 80's and 90's in copyright cases pointed out you don't have to be aware that an infringement of a copyright (culpa) has taken place, even if the infringement was intentional (dolo).

(Sorry for previous post - maybe misunderstood, deleted.)

I'm not with you - the consumer is automatically responsible even without specific knowledge, or not responsible?
If the latter then why even bother having these civil rights laws??

If the former, that's ridiculous.

 

[Tman*]

you wouldn't download a car?

 

[Brian_G]

I think @wizardofid meant the latter, was then referring to the second bold part of my post.

I guess we'll have to maybe see more detail, for now makes no difference to practicalities though which remain near unreal.

 

[wizardofid]

(Sorry for previous post - maybe misunderstood, deleted.)

I'm not with you - the consumer is automatically responsible even without specific knowledge, or not responsible?
If the latter then why even bother having these civil rights laws??

If the former, that's ridiculous.

To put it simple, you don't have to be aware(knowledge) that what you are doing constitutes an infringement of a copyright.

 

[RedViking]

Multichoice is dying and they know it is just a matter of time.

 

[Brian_G]

To put it simple, you don't have to be aware(knowledge) that what you are doing constitutes an infringement of a copyright.

Still isn't telling me if that lack of awareness is for or against you in legal considerations?

 

[Brian_G]

Multichoice is dying and they know it is just a matter of time.

I think that's part of the problem - they've always denied reality.

 

[rh1]

That app sounds interesting. Not that I would ever use such thing

The guy was elderly guy, one moment speaking about church, the next the app and how he he had to learn how to cast to his tv.

I did not take him on about the morality of using such an app, as I was there to watch the game, not debate right or wrong. I myself would not use it as I dont believe there is a so call free lunch.

My post was more about how an illegitimate app worked flawlessly as opposed to DSTV paid for app which simply just failed.

People who paid will not be impressed with the service. And might not be willing to pay MC in the future as DSTV does not work vs other ways.

 

[Speedster]

Still isn't telling me if that lack of awareness is for or against you in legal considerations?

I think what he's saying if that lack of awareness isn't a defence. You're equally guilty whether you knew you were infringing copyright or not.

 

[Brian_G]

I think what he's saying if that lack of awareness isn't a defence. You're equally guilty whether you knew you were infringing copyright or not.

That's what I thought originally. Let's hope not, it means someone can do all sorts of things behind your back and you end up guilty if getting involved innocently.

 

[backstreetboy]

Lol good luck. Close down viprow.net and 5 more will open.

 

[Speedster]

That's what I thought originally. Let's hope not, it means someone can do all sorts of things behind your back and you end up guilty if getting involved innocently.

I think in this case the potential illegality rests on the distribution side, not the consumption side.

 

[wizardofid]

Still isn't telling me if that lack of awareness is for or against you in legal considerations?

What they needed to establish in these cases is whether or not you needed to be aware of what you were doing was an infringement, not whether knowledge makes you guilty or not, they still need to proof guilt.

 

[Brian_G]

What they needed to establish in these cases is whether or not you needed to be aware of what you were doing was an infringement, not whether knowledge makes you guilty or not, they still need to proof guilt.

Okay. So if you're not aware of the law and/or the particulars, you are still liable for prosecution... IF they can then prove it.

They can't, as far as we can see unless one openly gives them what they need to prove it.

That aside, if a site offers me something as legitimately free and I take it, good luck to them proving I knew otherwise. They will need to prove that, else they're proclaiming you need knowledge of unavailable-for-study contracts to be able to avoid such guilty choices.

All sounds like BS more and more.