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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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."
-
@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.
