Report comment

Horse and stable door come to mind.

The difficulty is where to draw the line. The approach so far seems to be aimed at sellers of "fully loaded" boxes - i.e. those that are profiting by selling boxes that are already set up with add-ons that access unauthorised content. However, Mr Rendle's quote would suggest a much wider definition:

"...a powerful right to use against defendants who do not originate infringing sources of content but derive value from enabling access to it"

That covers everything from BT selling broadband, Google allowing searches, websites giving instructions on how to use similar (entirely legitimate) software, etc... It's not really that different from the music industry's campaign against blank cassette tapes all those years ago.

The problem with the limited approach of targeting those selling "fully loaded" boxes, is that if someone down the pub tells you what to search for, it takes all of 5 minutes to find and follow instructions which will change an entirely legitimate box (e.g. Amazon firestick) into something that can access the unauthorised sources. It really isn't that technical.

Unless the industry can tackle the unauthorised sources/servers that are streaming this material for people (which are presumably hosted in countries with a more relaxed attitude to copyright enforcement), the copyright holders are essentially fighting an unwinnable war.