DISH Is Threatening Lawsuits Against IPTV Subscribers

[Denim Chicken]

There are several all-in-one services available though. Just because some services have their own streaming service does not mean their programming is not available in other AIO services.

Again though, we're talking DISH network channels here.

Just playing devil advocate, but what service is comparable to being able to stream every channel--including premiums--from multiple countries for like $20 a month?

 

[Reality]

Just playing devil advocate, but what service is comparable to being able to stream every channel--including premiums--from multiple countries for like $50 a year?

The article is about DISH network.

Of course there is no "You get everything you want in life for $10" service that is legally available for anything (even Netflix has its limitations), but that is not what the article is about.

I specifically asked why would anyone pay for an illegal service when there are plenty of reasonably priced legal services available.

I could at least understand if a service was $150 month and someone who could not afford it looked for a free/cheap alternative just like I can understand why someone who cannot access certain channels or content (ex: sports games, foreign channels, etc.) in their area might look for a free/cheap or even available alternative.

I think you are assuming this is a "moral" statement on my part, but that is not what I am saying.

I am not saying, "How dare someone not pay for their service" but rather asking why would someone subscribe to (pay) an illegal service for the same thing they could get for a similar or reasonable price legally. I just don't see the logic in that.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

That is not what the article is about.

I did not ask why people subscribe to services they cannot get elsewhere.

I asked why would someone pay for an illegal service when there are multiple services just like it available for a reasonable price.

Its what I said plus what @Denim Chicken said.

I cannot get sports easily elsewhere, so I sign up for a service where I can get it. Said service also offers me all 300 million channels worldwide all in the same app. No more having to switch to 50 different apps and I get everything all in one spot.

Convenience is a huge piece.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

Just playing devil advocate, but what service is comparable to being able to stream every channel--including premiums--from multiple countries for like $20 a month?

Even just looking a dish network...they have sports too.

so I have to add netflix, hulu, amazon prime, and youtube tv and I still dont get everything a dish service provides.

 

[Denim Chicken]

The article is about DISH network.

Of course there is no "You get everything you want in life for $10" service that is legally available for anything (even Netflix has its limitations), but that is not what the article is about.

I specifically asked why would anyone pay for an illegal service when there are plenty of reasonably priced legal services available.

I could at least understand if a service was $150 month and someone who could not afford it looked for a free/cheap alternative just like I can understand why someone who cannot access certain channels or content (ex: sports games, foreign channels, etc.) in their area might look for a free/cheap or even available alternative.

I think you are assuming this is a "moral" statement on my part, but that is not what I am saying.

I am not saying, "How dare someone not pay for their service" but rather asking why would someone subscribe to (pay) an illegal service for the same thing they could get for a similar or reasonable price legally. I just don't see the logic in that.

I understand what you're saying. I think where the misunderstanding is that when someone signs up for an IPTV service, they are not specificity looking for just Dish TV content (who is is a rebroadcaster) nor is Dish TV the only content available. Those who sign up for an IPTV service are motivated by a broad spectrum of channels for a very cheap price. The only reason Dish TV is mentioned is they are the party taking legal action (Verizon, Comcast, or any other provider could do the same thing if they were inclined).

There are certainty many people using the reasonably priced legal services available, but others are motivated by getting more for their money so to speak.

 

[dogunwo]

Why would anyone "subscribe" to (as in pay) an illegal streaming service when there are several reasonably priced legal subscription-based streaming services available?

And then go brag about it, as if they were so much more clever than anyone foolish to actually pay for legal content instead of stealing it.

 

[Rockport]

I support anything that hurts Hollywood financially.

Of course you do.

 

[Rockport]

Kodi can be used 100% legally.

Not for first run movies.

 

[Rockport]

This comment is funny. So only Kodi users is being labeled as stealing? We see or hear free tv or music on Youtube, Dailymotion etc. Isn't that in a way stealing since we are viewing the content? I mean we can watch old football games on Youtube that isn't uploaded by the NFL. I guess that is ok because it is a trusted site. The reality is that everyone viewed something that wasn't purchased by us that wasn't uploaded by the company who owns the file.

In other words, if anyone wants to stop piracy, you have to start from the top. The top are the companies and people that provides the "illegal" content and then the viewers will have no other choice but to go OTA or pay for service. Hell, YouTube basically encourage piracy on their own website which allows anyone to get free content.

Hey if your morals allow you to watch first run movies on Kodi go for it. Just don’t whine when they come looking for you.

 

[Denim Chicken]

Not for first run movies.

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-streaming-sites-legal-2014-4

According to Jim Gibson, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond law school, told Business Insider that streaming online content breaks the law in two cases. When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation. Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal.

ETA: summary, as long as you aren't downloading anything or showing it to an audience it's generally not illegal according to this expert.

 

[Rockport]

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-streaming-sites-legal-2014-4

According to Jim Gibson, director of the Intellectual Property Institute at the University of Richmond law school, told Business Insider that streaming online content breaks the law in two cases. When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation. Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal.

ETA: summary, as long as you aren't downloading anything or showing it to an audience it's generally not illegal according to this expert.

When you watch a first run movie via Kodi you are “pseudo-streaming” so it is certainly illegal.

 

[Denim Chicken]

When you watch a first run movie via Kodi you are “pseudo-streaming” so it is certainly illegal.

No, typically you are not downloading any part of the file. You are simply viewing it, which, by the letter of the law, is not technically illegal.

Its basically the same as if your friend had a pirated copy of a movie and you watched it.

 

[Rockport]

No, typically you are not downloading any part of the file. You are simply viewing it, which, by the letter of the law, is not technically illegal.

Its basically the same as if your friend had a pirated copy of a movie and you watched it.

What you posted clearly states that streaming is considered downloading. Think about it. When you stream, you are downloading the content.

 

[Denim Chicken]

What you posted clearly states that streaming is considered downloading. Think about it. When you stream, you are downloading the content.

It's like watching a YouTube video. You are not downloading anything, meaning the file is never on your machine. That is the distinction.

 

[Rockport]

It's like watching a YouTube video. You are not downloading anything, meaning the file is never on your machine. That is the distinction.

You can’t watch a first run movie on YouTube. Just trailers. Come on man, read your post again. It’s written there in black and white.

 

[Denim Chicken]

You can’t watch a first run movie on YouTube. Just trailers. Come on man, read your post again. It’s written there in black and white.

Here is an example. Obviously this is not posted by the NFL who owns the copyright. Do you think it is illegal for you to view?

 

[Rockport]

Here is an example. Obviously this is not posted by the NFL who owns the copyright. Do you think it is illegal for you to view?

This is a video that was put out AFTER the game. Whether it’s legal or not I have no clue. Probably the NFL considers it free advertisement. However watching a movies on Kodi that is still in the theaters and not out on DVD is certainly illegal.

 

[Denim Chicken]

This is a video that was put out AFTER the game. Whether it’s legal or not I have no clue. Probably the NFL considers it free advertisement. However watching a movies on Kodi that is still in the theaters and not out on DVD is certainly illegal.

There is no distinction in legality based on when a movie is released. If it were ileagal, it would be so whether it was in the theaters ot a few years old.

 

[Rockport]

There is no distinction in legality based on when a movie is released. If it were ileagal, it would be so whether it was in the theaters ot a few years old.

I give up.

 

[Denim Chicken]

I give up.

Sorry, its tough to explain. You seem to be hung up on the content (first run movie vs older movie vs other content) when that is really besides the point.

The issue for legality is whether you are actually downloading a file or not. Most of the time in Kodi, you are not.