UK to block Kodi streams


  • Service Provider

    This is a very interesting ruling.

    https://www.engadget.com/2017/03/15/uk-kodi-block-premier-league-explained/

    The way it reads to me, it is narrow, focused, and not permanent.


  • Service Provider

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.


  • Service Provider

    The biggest problem, if I'm understanding this, is that "random private business" now has power to determine what freedom of speech British consumers have. Why is this one business given this outrageous power? What if all businesses were treated equally? What if the London Times could put a block on all text web sites during their hours of operation (which is 24x7.) What if the BBC could block all stream video while they were in operation (which is 24x7.) This is a very isolated thing at the moment, but the precedent is that, it seems, not only do companies get the right to block people stealing their services, but also get to block their competition. Because not only is the Premier League blocking people watching the Premier League in other ways, it is also blocking people watching home movies and other content - leaving them less to do and more likely to watch soccer.

    It would be like Ford making walking illegal. Sure, they didn't force you to buy a Ford, but you are much more likely to do so when walking isn't an option.



  • @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content.

    See I read it as they will only block a "server" if steaming illegal content, not just because it has kodi + Addons.


  • Service Provider

    @hobbit666 said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content.

    See I read it as they will only block a "server" if steaming illegal content, not just because it has kodi + Addons.

    If that is true, then that seems fine. Blocking based on bad behaviour. I read through the article and it didn't seem to say that, but that's why I was asking. It seemed insane as I read it.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @hobbit666 said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content.

    See I read it as they will only block a "server" if steaming illegal content, not just because it has kodi + Addons.

    If that is true, then that seems fine. Blocking based on bad behaviour. I read through the article and it didn't seem to say that, but that's why I was asking. It seemed insane as I read it.

    Read it again then, because it was quite clear on that IMO.


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.

    According to the article, it is no longer hard to do. That is part of the point.


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.

    According to the article, it is no longer hard to do. That is part of the point.

    Although also according to the article, the process is secret, so we don't know what they are doing at all. It does imply that they are supposed to only be blocking illegal streams. I question that it must be obscure to work. They haven't said how they would offer proof, only that they came up with their own method for determining who to block.


  • Service Provider

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.

    According to the article, it is no longer hard to do. That is part of the point.

    Although also according to the article, the process is secret, so we don't know what they are doing at all. It does imply that they are supposed to only be blocking illegal streams. I question that it must be obscure to work. They haven't said how they would offer proof, only that they came up with their own method for determining who to block.

    This line here insinuates it is simply a digital fingerprint.

    Judge Arnold states that technological advances in video fingerprinting can identify illegal streams in near real-time, allowing ISPs to be notified of new servers "nearly instantaneously."


  • Service Provider

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.

    According to the article, it is no longer hard to do. That is part of the point.

    Although also according to the article, the process is secret, so we don't know what they are doing at all. It does imply that they are supposed to only be blocking illegal streams. I question that it must be obscure to work. They haven't said how they would offer proof, only that they came up with their own method for determining who to block.

    This line here insinuates it is simply a digital fingerprint.

    Judge Arnold states that technological advances in video fingerprinting can identify illegal streams in near real-time, allowing ISPs to be notified of new servers "nearly instantaneously."

    Yes, but they later stated that the digital fingerprint technology was not the only thing that they were using. They pointed out that they used that, then pointed out that they were using something else later.



  • @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @JaredBusch said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    @scottalanmiller said in UK to block Kodi streams:

    So in the UK, sports franchises now have "ownership" of the Internet and can determine your right to use your own data? Reading the ruling, they are going to block any Kodi server they want, even if you own it and are using it for your own content. They literally "own" you now, at least during the hours under which they are doing business - which is something that they determine.

    No, they have copyright of the media. The servers being blocked are illegally providing a feed of that media.

    Where is the disconnect here?

    The league is required to show proof of the illegal stream before the site is blocked.

    That's what I was missing, and what I was asking. In that case,it seems reasonable, if hard to do.

    According to the article, it is no longer hard to do. That is part of the point.

    Although also according to the article, the process is secret, so we don't know what they are doing at all. It does imply that they are supposed to only be blocking illegal streams. I question that it must be obscure to work. They haven't said how they would offer proof, only that they came up with their own method for determining who to block.

    This line here insinuates it is simply a digital fingerprint.

    Judge Arnold states that technological advances in video fingerprinting can identify illegal streams in near real-time, allowing ISPs to be notified of new servers "nearly instantaneously."

    So streaming over HTTPS wouldn't be prevented. Seems like this is going to become more and more useless as the internet moves to encryption as a standard.


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to MangoLassi was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.