FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 20, 2017 Report Posted March 20, 2017 http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/free-tv-android-box-court-roger-bell-videotron-1.4029874
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 And the ruling... http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-free-tv-bell-rogers-1.4033741
The Unknown Poster Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 17 minutes ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: And the ruling... http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-free-tv-bell-rogers-1.4033741 Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though.
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 33 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though. How are Bell, Rogers and Quebec's Vidéotron not content providers?
bigg jay Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 36 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. On the other hand, they arent charging fees that pay for the right to air that content so on its face, its clearly the right call. You'd think it would be the content providers who'd have an issue with this though. As someone who uses an android box daily, I have no problem with this ruling. The issue isn't that they are selling the boxes themselves (you can buy those anywhere), it's that they were selling/advertising fully loaded boxes. They would have been fine if they just sold the boxes as is & let people choose how they wanted to use them but these guys pre-loaded them with Kodi so they could jack the price. It literally takes 5 minutes to install Kodi for free & there are step-by-step videos everywhere so it's not as though they were providing a big service ... it's a simple cash grab. Brandon 1
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 4 minutes ago, bigg jay said: As someone who uses an android box daily, I have no problem with this ruling. The issue isn't that they are selling the boxes themselves (you can buy those anywhere), it's that they were selling/advertising fully loaded boxes. They would have been fine if they just sold the boxes as is & let people choose how they wanted to use them but these guys pre-loaded them with Kodi so they could jack the price. It literally takes 5 minutes to install Kodi for free & there are step-by-step videos everywhere so it's not as though they were providing a big service ... it's a simple cash grab. Legally KODI itself is fine. It's the add-ons that are causing trouble. Just have to sell them now as Almost Fully-loaded. Brandon 1
Jacquie Posted March 21, 2017 Report Posted March 21, 2017 1 hour ago, The Unknown Poster said: Interesting. I guess the argument in support of the boxes is that the cable companies shouldnt be able to dictate how people access the content. It would be like Shaw suing Bell and saying 'hey you cant provide a way for consumers to access the content because we already do that'. These boxes are, in a way, just another gateway to the content. Your example is flawed since cable companies have to pay for the content and there is no exclusivity in the contacts they sign.
The Unknown Poster Posted March 22, 2017 Report Posted March 22, 2017 15 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said: How are Bell, Rogers and Quebec's Vidéotron not content providers? True. They are both
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 22, 2017 Report Posted March 22, 2017 4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: i'll see you in court.
The Unknown Poster Posted March 22, 2017 Report Posted March 22, 2017 Happy 86th birthday to great Canadian William Shatner
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 22, 2017 Report Posted March 22, 2017 3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said: Happy 86th birthday to great Canadian William Shatner He's aged well but maybe its the hair.
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2017 Report Posted March 24, 2017 From Tulsa: police run over and kill woman shooting at them. Crazy
Atomic Posted March 24, 2017 Report Posted March 24, 2017 43 minutes ago, The Unknown Poster said: From Tulsa: police run over and kill woman shooting at them. Crazy Hopefully the car wasn't damaged.
The Unknown Poster Posted March 24, 2017 Report Posted March 24, 2017 Just now, Atomic said: Hopefully the car wasn't damaged. police have insurance. Car came out a lot better than the idiot who tried to kill cops.
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 24, 2017 Report Posted March 24, 2017 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/license-plate-government-regulations-removal-last-name-1.4037912
FrostyWinnipeg Posted March 27, 2017 Report Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) "Barring an unforeseen obstacle, the Oakland Raiders seem certain to get approval Monday to relocate to Las Vegas. Several team owners have said this week they don't envision a scenario where Raiders owner Mark Davis doesn't get the required 24 votes to move the team." Golden Knights attendance woes start now? Edited March 27, 2017 by FrostyWinnipeg
iHeart Posted March 27, 2017 Report Posted March 27, 2017 (edited) why is LV suddenly a hot spot for major league sports, when normally their venues are boxing related? which industry is likely going to be hurt most because of this? but then again I think the big question is which franchise will fail first oh wait the team won't be moving to Vegas for another two years Edited March 27, 2017 by iHeart
The Unknown Poster Posted March 27, 2017 Report Posted March 27, 2017 I think the NHL was always interested in going there. I guess for most sports it comes down to a facility. Once MGM built the arena and wanted a regular tenant, it became easy for the NHL to want to go there.
Rich Posted March 27, 2017 Author Report Posted March 27, 2017 For the longest time all professional sports leagues stayed away from Vegas because they didn't want the appearance of their product associated with gambling. Now that the internet has proliferated gambling so that anyone can bet on sports from the comfort of their La-Z-Boy, it doesn't have the stigma it once had.
bigg jay Posted March 27, 2017 Report Posted March 27, 2017 1 hour ago, iHeart said: oh wait the team won't be moving to Vegas for another two years Brandon Blue&Gold and Atomic 2
JCon Posted March 28, 2017 Report Posted March 28, 2017 17 hours ago, Rich said: For the longest time all professional sports leagues stayed away from Vegas because they didn't want the appearance of their product associated with gambling. Now that the internet has proliferated gambling so that anyone can bet on sports from the comfort of their La-Z-Boy, it doesn't have the stigma it once had. And, fantasy sports has softened everyone on gambling. Rich 1
Jacquie Posted March 29, 2017 Report Posted March 29, 2017 (edited) For anyone thinking of going to Grand Forks, Fargo, etc: Edited March 29, 2017 by Jacquie
Atomic Posted March 29, 2017 Report Posted March 29, 2017 2 hours ago, Jacquie said: For anyone thinking of going to Grand Forks, Fargo, etc: Practically speaking, not much difference. It's not like it was difficult to get a concealed carry permit before. Basically like getting a fishing licence.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now