Netflix, Amazon, and Major Studios Try To Shut Down $20-Per-Month TV Service (arstechnica.com) 212
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: Netflix, Amazon, and the major film studios have once again joined forces to sue the maker of a TV service and hardware device, alleging that the products are designed to illegally stream copyrighted videos. The lawsuit was filed against the company behind Set TV, which sells a $20-per-month TV service with more than 500 channels.
"Defendants market and sell subscriptions to 'Setvnow,' a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and television shows," the complaint says. Besides Netflix and Amazon, the plaintiffs are Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The complaint was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The companies are asking for permanent injunctions to prevent further distribution of Set TV software and devices, the impoundment of Set TV devices, and for damages including the defendants' profits.
"Defendants market and sell subscriptions to 'Setvnow,' a software application that Defendants urge their customers to use as a tool for the mass infringement of Plaintiffs' copyrighted motion pictures and television shows," the complaint says. Besides Netflix and Amazon, the plaintiffs are Columbia Pictures, Disney, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century Fox, Universal, and Warner Bros. The complaint was filed Friday in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. The companies are asking for permanent injunctions to prevent further distribution of Set TV software and devices, the impoundment of Set TV devices, and for damages including the defendants' profits.
Sounds good. (Score:2)
Can't see a problem.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Except for musicians. No one has paid musicians correctly for decades and the music keeps flowing.
And Poets. Poets get nothing no matter how you slice it.
Oh, and most script writers.
And a lot of authors. They hardly ever get paid what they're worth.
Comet o think of it the only people who do get paid are producers of television and movies. Strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just how do you like your art?
People will keep making and playing music. How do you want to get it? Sheet music for your piano? YouTube videos with mostly decent production values? Going to concerts? If you want well-produced audio files or something like that, there's a lot of work involved that needs to be paid for.
Similarly, if you like writing fiction, it's fun. Rewriting is much less fun. If you want a polished novel, there needs to be an editor to work with the author on revisions, probabl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Even if that were a problem, stealing content does nothing to fix it. Try again.
Wrong.
Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.
Burn it down.
The legal and political systems have been suborned by their lobbying and outright bribery so there is no relief possible by legal means.
That just leaves destroying them in the most efficient means possible. Kill their ability to sustain their business. Only once their profits have been dest
Re:Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.
So, if we keep raiding your bank account, that will make things better for you? Sounds like a good plan.
According to your plan above ALL content makers should be bankrupt, so we actually will only have the crap that someone makes for their YouTube channel, but only if they aren't making TOO much profit on it, at that point then their stuff should be stolen and distributed in such a way as to not make them any money.
Totally sounds reasonable.
You do realize, that there is no better, EVER, if there are no content makers, and nobody wants to be one because there is no motivation to do so, so congrats, you've destroyed an industry. What's next?
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Lets make this is a fair comparison:
> So, if we keep raiding your bank account, that will make things better for you? Sounds like a good plan.
So long as when you are done raiding the same amount is left in the account as before.
Copyright is the same way: "copies" are made, originals are not damaged or removed.
Re: (Score:2)
Now _that_ (real copyright reform) is a real plan. "Burn it all down" is just a temper tantrum.
Re: (Score:2)
One path (or aspect) to that would be to disrupt their influence on the legal system and laws (ex. political contributions and lobbyists). "Burn it all down" would achieve that, which would aid in passing copyright reform. I'm not claiming it's right, or the best way, etc, but I think it has more impact than simply telling this echo chamber that we need copyright reform :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Now _that_ (real copyright reform) is a real plan. "Burn it all down" is just a temper tantrum.
"Real copyright reform" is not going to happen as long as the copyright cartels have nearly unlimited funds to bribe and pressure politicians, judges, and bureaucrats around the world with.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
I think you're overthinking the defense of SetTV. I can simplify it: Freetards gonna freetard.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Look, I'm sorry for you that Battlestar Galactica ended, but the TV industry is already undergoing a revolution and there is more and more long-tail content available than ever before. We don't need to "burn it all down" to make things better.
Besides, "burn it all down" is never been a viable plan, because it completely ignore what happens next. Show me your plan for how to make things better (whether or not it's all burned down first) and I'll take you more seriously.
Maybe you should try reading some boo
Re: (Score:2)
Stealing their content and distributing it for free, and any other means of damaging them, their profits, and their systems of control until they go bankrupt is the only way things will ever get better.
Translation: I want the content, but I don't want to pay for it. Let me use this "crusader against the tyranny" excuse to justify my actions to friends, family, and to delude myself as well.
Not sure where you hail from, but most Western societies have evolved past the "take as much shit as I can" way of thinking about the world.
Re: (Score:2)
A good number of the entities who really have power in your "Western society" are even thought to be obligated to "take as much shit as I can", or be thought of as betraying their shareholders.
Sorry, Netflix has power in Western society? Purveyors of knock-off movies and 2nd rate TV series?
Netflix, etc. is not a requirement for health, or even happiness. You can just not watch it. You can read a book. Netflix can't take my shit. I either give it to them because I think it's a good value, or I don't and keep my money. It's not complicated.
Re: (Score:2)
We don't have nice content, and we didn't have before this 'Set tv' thing. Try again?
Really? I don't watch much cable or OTA but I watch a lot of YouTube, Netflix and Amazon. We're living in the golden age of video content, at least through streaming distribution.
If you can't find nice content, you must have much higher standards than I do. I'd love to know what you think nice content would be and how it's better than the best available today.
Re: Sounds good. (Score:5, Insightful)
You (meaning Americans) can't have nice content
A billion+ people around the world, in 100+ countries, would beg to disagree.
But hey, the important thing here is that you get to feel superior to those ignorant rednecks and show the world how cultured and refined you are. Who cares what the help thinks, as long as they bring the tea and biscuits when you ring your bell.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The BBC really isn't any "freer" than American TV. It just has a different business model that has the government involved.
Sure, the Beeb produces a lot of great material and I watch a lot of it (either through Amazon Prime Video or by buying DVDs).
To me, the BBC really isn't any different than any other content provider. They make some great stuff, and I pay for what I like. But it seems to me that need to appeal to as wide an audience as possible is still there, no less than it is for American TV. If
Re: (Score:2)
The likes of Netflix and Amazon somewhat buck this trend because they work globally, and their business model requires they have some "wow factor" to get people to try their services, so have to have some quality content to do so.
"Somewhat"?!? They're blowing up the entire industry! As a consumer, this is fantastic. The competition for my attention (instigated by Netflix, Amazon, HBO, and others) is forcing all the studios to up their games. Yay free market! Yay no legal barriers to entry!
Now back to The Expanse...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Sounds good. (Score:4, Interesting)
The BBC also "spends" over 40% of the UK TV tax on advertising, despite not having to compete. The BBC sent about 450 people for a month long 5* stay in Brazil during the Olympics, despite not being the broadcaster cover the events. The BBC accepts hundreds of millions from the EU, despite being a UK broadcaster with the remit to provide services to the UK which commercial broadcasters would not.
It's time the TV tax was killed, and the BBC learnt to live beyond it's self-indulgent PC-obsessed unreality world. Netflix-like iplayer subscriptions will bring in plenty of income from around the world.
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
In a system with only commercial advert-driven content, they'd all be free to conspire together to lower production quality to the bare minimum level needed, below which consumers merely turn the TV off in disgust and do something else.
You don't know what you're talking about. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to watch the History channel so that I can catch on my the latest reality TV show. If I don't hurry I'll miss the 3 minute window between advertisements and I'll never know what Kim Kardasian had for breakfast.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can we please stop trolling the British? Any society that produces "Red Dwarf" and "Jeeves and Wooster" (just to name a few) can't be all bad!
Just as any society that produces "MST3K" and "The Simpsons" (seasons 1 - 8) can't be all bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Slashvertisement? (Score:2)
I Won't Respect Unconsitutional Laws (Score:1)
When the copyright law in the USA starts respecting the Constitution, I'll start respecting copyright law. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, content companies are the bad guys and pirates are the good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
The "content companies" being the bad guys doesn't make the pirates the good guys. AFAIKT they're nearly neutral. If their actions harmed the MPAA or the RIAA, then I might consider them good guys.
Re: (Score:2)
When the copyright law in the USA starts respecting the Constitution, I'll start respecting copyright law. Until then, as far as I'm concerned, content companies are the bad guys and pirates are the good guys.
Interesting how your moral high ground happens to allow you to take all the free shit you want. Convenient!
Re: (Score:2)
Except, sadly, this doesn't seem to be the case for copyright. What with retroactive extensions of copyright, no published works will enter the public domain in 2018. On January 1, 2019, some works from 1923 will become public domain, assuming a well known media conglomerate with a rodent mascot doesn't buy another extension.
I understand why the House of the Mouse wants to protect their holdings. I understand (but despise) how Congress might go along with this. I really can't understand how The Supremes can
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In capitalist countries, the government doesn't limit the amount artists can make. J.K. Rowling became a billionaire.
Always winning! (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
If obly (Score:2)
there was some way that could provide access to all of the 80+ years of television that is already around. Tnere is a lot of "old" television that has no presence on either Netflix or Amazon.
I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Yeah but just think what would happen, in less then a week progressives(aka regressives) would be screaming about how all those old shows are racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. There would be whining and more screeching. Then the people with connections to media would start pushing the narrative that these companies support said sexism/racism/homophobia/etc, and you'd see the progressive-fringe press start pumping out stories. It would be amplified by more progressive sites.
Then mainstream media would then st
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
I guess you missed the calm, considered and insightful debate around shows like The Simpsons (particularly Apu), Friends and Saved by the Bell. Or the thoughtful re-examining of old movies like the 60s/70s James Bond stuff.
This appears to be yet more fake outrage. Unfortunately posting outrage videos about fake outrage on YouTube is quite popular, but if you ignore those there are some quite thoughtful pieces on this subject.
Moviebob on Apu: https://youtu.be/NGMnnrw70lA [youtu.be]
Lindsay Ellis on Transformers: https:/ [youtu.be]
Re: (Score:2)
Who cares about what people think about TV shows with old values? I can find you lots and lots of literature that's racist, sexist, and homophobic. I haven't seem any clamor for banning Lovecraft's work, and the guy was a racist to the bone.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And then the "alternative" media
But here's the funny thing, I can look at one and chuckle over the crazy. At the other, I can see the media lining up to defend it and the politicians and media personalities lining up to preach and tell everyone "why removing this stuff is a good idea." The latter has happened repeatedly over the last 5 years.
Re:If obly (Score:4, Interesting)
That was your first mistake. I just hate conservative ideology. I want to be left alone.
> progressives attempt to control a persons life
Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.
Re: (Score:2)
Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.
I'd say there's a big difference between Republicans and libertarians (small l). Libertarians have a slightly different basket of crazy, but I would say the Republican ideology is less "freedom" and more "things should just be the way they used to be. And that includes not making things more free than they used to be."
Re: (Score:2)
That was your first mistake. I just hate conservative ideology. I want to be left alone.
Too bad. 5 years ago I was just like that until the regressives decided they wanted to start screwing with my hobbies.
Like gay marraige, birth control, where mosques can be built, what's allowable on TV or movies, violence in video games, recreational use of drugs, various levels of "obscenity" censorship laws, anti-porn stances - yeah the conservative element is SO TOTALLY open and FREE. You're retarded. You're a retarded motherfucker. We're done here.
Sorry retarded motherfucker? I must have missed all that since they were all progressive decisions here in Ontario. You know, Canada, in a province under a government that makes democrats seem like right-wingers.
Yep, you're in a bubble and have no clue what's going on around you.
Re: (Score:2)
Netflix's selection sucks because they're blowing their wad on "original" content.
Netflix is blowing their wad on original content because the content companies want Netflix to double their rates so that people pay $6-10 per movie stream, on top of what Netflix needs to charge for overhead. They also want to charge enormous amounts of money for streaming just about anything, which is why Netflix's back catalog for streaming sucks (and is getting smaller). In a couple years, Disney will pull ALL content no matter the price so they can bolster THEIR proprietary service.
They couldn't pull t
Re: (Score:2)
No business in their right mind gives a rat's ass about what bleeding heart SJWs whine about on Twitter. Social media is a toxic cesspool in general, and it's best to simply pretend it doesn't exist.
No? Why don't you go and explain why there's so many companies pandering to the bleeding heart SJWs on every issue. From automotive, to print media, to online media, to video games. And they all do it based on that whine off social media. Maybe you can also explain the current BS being pushed by media matters and using exclusively progressive sites to push brands to do things to "people they don't like." I agree though, it's better to pretend it doesn't exist. Because once they have blood in the wate
Re: (Score:3)
I mean. next they will be going after people accessing broadcast television with an antenna....
Are you equating someone pirating and rebroadcasting content illegally with someone legally receiving broadcast TV programming? Because that's a false equivalence.
Help Please (Score:4, Interesting)
Their web site doesn't explain where the content comes from. The media companies being annoyed says it's doing some sort of end around.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - I'll join you. Someone please enlighten us. I don't get it either. Based on other comments it suggests Setv may be streaming material that is / should be in the public domain?
Or not: I've seen friends who stream sports matches from overseas using stolen credentials - all through an app that they download. And there's that Roku box package thing that was shutdown last year.
So are they attempting to provide access to "open" info or pirate content? Either way it sounds like they are taking the $20
Re: (Score:2)
Their channel listing: https://www.setvnow.com/channe... [setvnow.com]
In addition to various streams that are like re-streams of freely available OTA content, there are a lot of channels that are cable only, some of which will be premium channels on any cable package. Access to such channels by established cable companies requires very expensive licensing agreements, and those license fees are passed on to the consumer.
Whether you like existing copyright laws or not, this company is quite clearly breaking them. The la
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Help Please (Score:4, Informative)
So at the end of the day, you're paying 20$ a month for a web browser and an aggregation service.
Re: (Score:2)
So something like subscribing to HBO and rebroadcasting? If so they're screwed except Hong Kong might have a loophole.
Welcome to Gig Economy. (Score:3)
When I am not watching Netflix, I should be able to sell the stream I am entitled to, on the net for some money on the side.
I think this service should label itself "as NOT a TV service provider" and call it self "media stream hailing service (SHS)". I should be able to list my Netflix stream, Prime stream on it for a specific duration. Anyone can look it up and hail this stream and pay me for use. I might sell my Netflix stream for 20 cents an hour. The SHS company will take its cut, may be 8 cents and give me 12 cents. Or I might sell it for 1 cent an hour, and we split it 50-50 with the SHS.
That would be a real disruptor. Quick, let me patent/copyright this idea.
Re: (Score:2)
No, I think you offer it for free but insert your own pop-up advertisements and commercials throughout the programs. It would be a gold mine.
Let's patent together - I'll split the profit with you 50 / 50.
Re: (Score:2)
I like your idea but I would add blockchain micro-payments using one of the more serious crypto-currency, which is Dogecoin. Let's patent together - I'll split the profit with both of you 50/50/75.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But Citi card stupidly automatically allowed them to charge my card even with an expired card number. Some bullshit argument, "since the vendor has been charging monthly, to avoid service interruption, blah blah blah...". I put my foot down and said, "no way. The whole idea of the virtual number and dollar limit is meaningless with this policy.
So 20$ a month? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you're going to illegally stream your media, you might as well do it for free.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but for $10 more you can get Sling TV. It's not $500 channels, but I've selected a package more to my liking than I ever could have with $80+ cable.
My only concern now is throttling, to which I'll respond with a cheap VPN account.
Correction (Score:2)
Information about Set TV and illegal IPTV (Score:5, Informative)
Here is a fairly informative article about Set TV and how illegal IPTV services work: https://flixed.io/set-tv-not-l... [flixed.io]
Y not Sue Google over YouTube copyright violation? (Score:2)
I can listen to any song I want on youtube. Usually with no advertisements.
I can also watch a lot documentaries, movies, and TV shows.
Re: (Score:2)
What's crazy is that for certain genres (like car reviews), the YouTube content is better than a lot of the paid content out there.
Re: (Score:2)
I just checked with them; they're 100% legal. (Score:2)
Carl
Customer support
Chat started
Customer Service
Welcome! Thank you for contacting Support! Can we help you with anything?
You — Please update your info
How's the lawsuit going? Are you guys criminally liable or just civil?
I'll assume criminal liability unless you say otherwise ;)
Carl joined the chat
Carl
Hello! Thank you for contacting chat support.
Our service is 100% legal.
Thank you for your inquiry this issue has been forwarded to our legal department any further questions email to:Compliance@setvnow.c
Don't understand how this works (Score:2)
This isn't the first company to set up antenna, catch OTA signals, and time or space shift them. Wasn't there a case against some other company a few years ago? IIRC the company won with the courts saying time and space shifting was permitted.
That doesn't work for streaming services. I'm obligated to have a Netflix account to view Netflix content. I can see how it might be fine for me to buffer the bits and watch them later. I don't think I have the right to keep those buffered bits if I should cancel my Ne
Re: (Score:2)
It's not really "piracy" when you are paying a company for their hardware and subscription service.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, it's not really "theft" if you purchase a stolen iPhone. Right?
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it would depend on whether you knew it was stolen, you might be liable on something akin to aiding and abetting theft.
It would seem Set TV is clearly breaking the law, akin to the various KODI-box clones (Dragon?) that have gotten shut down, but I don't see how their users in question would be liable for piracy.
Re: (Score:2)
I suppose it would depend on whether you knew it was stolen, you might be liable on something akin to aiding and abetting theft.
As they say, ignorance of the law is not a defense. If you bought an iPhone 10 for $100 from a guy on the street, you'd fail miserably if you attempted to claim you didn't know it was stolen. Same here. If you are getting hundreds of dollars worth of streaming services and content for $20 / month, you can't claim ignorance.
I don't see how their users in question would be liable for piracy.
There have been many, many legal cases showing that downloading pirated content is against the law. Not that Netflix et al. is going to prosecute users of this system, but the OP's sugges
Re:The next site... (Score:5, Insightful)
Me and my friends walk into AC's house and take everything. It's not a crime. Everybody is doing it. What's more, it says AC on all the receipts, so go on, prove it's not mine.
Nope, you go in and make copies of everything. AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching, either way he's in the exact same position as before you and your buddies turned up.
Re: The next site... (Score:2)
AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching
Which is why it's totally cool to copy his homemade porn videos and post them on the torrent sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, you go in and make copies of everything. AC won't even notice unless he catches you in the act or is watching, either way he's in the exact same position as before you and your buddies turned up.
Sigh. It it costs $25m to produce a series season, and no one subscribes because they all pirate the content, what do you think happens? This isn't hard. When you pirate, you mooch. You mooch from everyone that pays for a subscription. You rely on me paying for a subscription to subsidize your downloading.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
are they also "mooching" off of you?
I wouldn't call it mooching, but I agree they are manipulating the laws to their benefit.
But this is what I don't get. Whether you steal their content, or choose to not purchase their content, it's the same effect to them: they don't get your money. So it seems a little too convenient that so many folks' decide on a "moral" course of action that happens to align with them saving hundreds or thousands of dollars a year on media consumption.
If you really feel strongly that copyright laws are being abused, abs
Re: (Score:2)
But this is what I don't get. Whether you steal their content, or choose to not purchase their content, it's the same effect to them: they don't get your money
This is the bit I don't get. the assumption that they would have got your money or are somehow entitled to it anyway. It's been shown time and time again that a pirate copy does not equal a lost sale.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a deal involved. It's been way distorted until most people don't recognize it any more, but it's that we give creative people an amount of time to make money off their work, and then it goes into the public domain. The copyright period is intended to allow people time to make money When that time has expired, everybody gets it. After all, copyright is an infringement on free speech and harms development of culture, so we don't want it to last indefinitely.
It's not going to bother me any if y
Re: (Score:2)
I was all about pirating content when I was younger ... then I became a software developer and suddenly it finally clicked in that even though its just a copy, its still is taking things away from those who made it. If one person buys my software and just gives copies to everyone else, I can't sustain the process of making software. Its that simple.
Sadly, the best way to prevent software piracy is online only apps where you don't purchase the software only rent/use them. If media could figure out a way to do this I would expect media to follow suit. The problem is that unlike interactive software, it's too easy to record movies. I wouldn't be surprised though if movies start becoming more interactive as a way to prevent piracy.
Re: (Score:3)
I wouldn't be surprised though if movies start becoming more interactive as a way to prevent piracy.
I believe they call that a video game.
So... (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
So if I download a copy of your software, your company is cool with me using and redistributing it in any way I see fit? I don't have any contract at all with you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Using her mail server (regardless of timing of laws and application of what should have been common sense) for non classified e-mails wasn't what got people really ticked off. Handling classified documents in a way that would have gotten other people fired or jailed was the big issue. Maybe it was just me.
Oh... and the handling of evidence once it became an issue... there's that too...
Re: (Score:2)
Unless you're going to give me a good reason why she may have intended to cheat on handling classified information, we have to compare her with people who inadvertently mishandled classified information, none of whom that I could find were jailed.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Apparently the lack of licensing agreements would be a major point...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is Set TV different than DirecTV Now or Youtube TV
Hmmm. Let's see. The former doesn't license any of the content, meaning the folks that produced the content get zero compensation for their efforts?
I mean, that might be it. I'm not sure.
Re: (Score:2)
Technology incentivized copyright into becoming the legal disaster it is today. It has to evolve with that technology or become more toothless and pointless than it already is.
Er? Every single copyright holder has always had the ability to control their content, and today consumers have multiple technological means to legally get content that we didn't have 20 or sometimes 10 years ago. For example Netflix only started streaming 11 years ago. Before then their predominant delivery was mail. Apple and Amazon certainly didn't stream 20 years ago. These advances have pushed traditional distribution methods to innovate. If you are looking at physical distribution, Redbox has largely
Re: (Score:2)
It's not a matter of movies being approximately eternal, since that's true of literature.