vallumlj

Has anyone got one can you really watch sky sports for free.

Can you air play what your watching on your ipad?

Any help would be good.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/JAILBREAK-...219095&afsrc=1

Thanks

bustaMOVEs

iTrader: (31)

Hmm intresting.......

tony de wonderful

No idea. They are basically selling an Android powered media centre that runs XBMC on top. You have to get everything over the internet. Can u get free Sky Sports on the internet? I dunno?

davegtt

Maybe not exactly Sky Sports broadcast but you can get the media stream pretty easily via the internet. Paying for Sky Sports is just crazy in this day and age

tony de wonderful

Is it legal?

davegtt

Doesnt matter if it is or it isnt. You're not broadcasting it. I guess its like saying if you witness a crime, are you involved.

JackClark

That's dumb.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Jack, come on now... you know we live in an age where copyrght theft is acceptable to all but a few of us luddites! Get with the program

tony de wonderful

It's a heinous crime and nobody should do it.

geordiesi

iTrader: (10)

If your not broadcasting the stream then can't be held responsible for the content on that site.
I watch all the premier league games for my team on the Internet and know loads of pubs that do this.
Why pay for sky sports when can get to see them for free and just as good a picture dependant on your broadband speed.

Rob_Impreza99

iTrader: (3)

XBMC is really hit and a miss, at peak times it can be poor. When it works its great but thats mainly off peak which is usually before 6pm and after 1am.

If you want to go down that route you need to get a dreambox and use cccam.

JackClark

Where do you live? I need some petrol and would love to use yours that you've left lying around outside. It's not my fault you left it there.

davegtt

Thank you... this is exactly how it is. People who think otherwise and happy to pay for Sky Sports probably get paid far too much

JackClark

Do you help yourself to fruit on a market stall? How is it different?

cster

I'm sure there're a few who would if SKY owned it.

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Technical Definition of theft involves deprivation of the owner, copyright infringement does not deprive the owner of the original.

That is the difference between theft and copyright infringemnt.

Taking a piece of fruit deprives the market stall holder of said fruit, copying a piece of music or a movie leaves the original intact.

Theft has (to all intents and purposes) always been a criminal offence and copyright infringement has (pretty much) always been a civil issue until recently.

Consider yourself educated on the differences and legal standpoints

As to the moral issues, why should actors, movie makers etc be paid so much more than Joe Bloggs who works in McDonalds? Are they really being deprived a standard of living by copyright infringement? How does this compare to stealing fruit from a self employed market stall holder?

So yeah, I think we can all agree there is a very big difference between copying a piece of media and stealing some fruit.

JackClark

Both will see you in court if caught. Lets remove the market trader and put the fruit back on the tree, you take an Apple another one grows, did it cost the tree owner anything to produce, any more or less than the producer of a movie or record?

Anyhow trying to justify Copyright infringement is not big or clever is it? In my world if I want something that's not free I work and pay for it, there are too many people like you who believe they have a right to take what they want, no doubt you are educating your children to believe it's OK as well.

tony de wonderful

Ownership is just a basket of rights which sometimes attaches to a physical object, sometimes it doesn't.

Copyright is the ownership of various rights which give the owner the exclusive rights to sell a certain product such as a film or a song. Basically it gives them monopoly rights to claim rent. This is what is owned rather than the actual 'physical' movie itself.

Property is a monopoly right too, one of its 'uses' is that you have monopoly rights to rent it.

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Not trying to justify it and my kids have originals for any movies they wish to watch, so less assumption and more facts next time Jack.

As previously stated I am comparing the 2 things that you asked about and I educated you in those differences, nowhere did I justify doing it.

All of my movies are backed up because it is a **** sight easier to access multiple movies from a hdd than sort through a dvd collection. It is also a **** sight easier to let the kids use that system than expect them to look after original DVD's and even put them back in a case.

Now, there is also the case of recording from the TV, this is also copyright infringement yet how many billions of people have used TIVO, SKY+ VCR's etc etc, so yeah don't preach to me about the lessons I might teach my kids when you clearly don't even grasp the scale of the issue.

Assume makes an *** of u and me, or in this case, just you.

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

So if an individual downloads a movie that he would never have gone to the cinema to watch or rented on dvd, but would have waited maybe 10 months for it to appear on sky movies, what impact does this have on the copyright owner financially?

This is the argument that copyright infrigers use.

Another example is TV series.

Currently, the US is screening series 8 of Dexter, and last night it was episode 2, while in the UK it was Episode one on Fox.

If one was to download and watch the first 2 episodes rather than record them on their SKY+ HD box meaning they are a week ahead of the curve, what impact does this have financially on anyone? The infringer still has the subscription to SKY+ HD, if he recorded it likely he would have FF through the adverts rather than watch them. Technically, both are copyright infringement as well.

Now, next up you decide you are gonna have a boxing event party. You and your mates chip in to pay for a live boxing event on SKY Box Office. All your mates come round and you pay for the box office event being partially reimbursed by your mates. Where does that stand legally?

Honestly, copyright infringement is such a huge can of worms I doubt there is much legislation that holds water tight enough to convict any but the biggest pirates with huge collections selling or making money from them.

I do not advocate piracy, but I cannot say that I have not in my past breached a few copyright rules, heck when I was 15 I recorded the Radio 1 Chart Show on a Sunday night using a cassette recorder

EddScott

Ultimately that argument would destroy the TV industry - or at least reduce the quality significantly.

If everyone could watch a film for free on day of release where would the money come from to watch the film? People will pay to watch something now rather than wait for it to come up on TV (ala Sky Movies). Sometimes a film will come on Movies that I paid for on Sky Store and thought was rubbish and I think I could have waited and watched this film for the cost of my subs. Alternatively, I paid the best part of £50 to take myself, my daughter and her two friends to the cinema to watch Epic (we watched Star Trek in the end as Epic was full and as the one paying and the designated driver of 3 11 year olds I felt my choice had more weight to it ) I could have waited but I wanted to watch on a big screen and in 3D.

If films were free on release you wouldn't be able to see the actors through all the advertising

Thats brave admitting to such a crime on a public forum!

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

That is one argument, the other is that profits would be much lower and the people involved would not be living like oil barons

Longer term I think the cinema is dead and that eventually the way forward for most forms of entertainment is in the home. There will still be a place for the Ballet, Theatre, live events, but longer term, most audio/visual entertainment will be geared for home delivery electronically. This will substantially reduce the profits and payments made to people in the industry and will also make a lot of services more advert dependant sadly.

One could liken the cinema to a laundrette and the home theatre as a washing machine maybe?

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

It's ok, the evidence is long gone

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Bollocks. A home washing machine does a better job of washing your clothes than most laundrettes. A home cinema, however, ain't a patch on an Imax presentation of a movie no matter how good the home system is. Not even close.

We have already had the qulaity of most music wrecked by people thinking 128k MP3 is hi-fi, please let's not f**k up movies as well!!!

As for the whole copyright theft thing I can't be ar5ed getting involved again. It is theft in my eyes and there is a generation growing up now that think stealing is acceptable....... the whole argument of the owner has lost nothing physical is bullsh1t!!!

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Thanks for your opinion, as I have never been to an Imax, as I suspect neither have the vast majority of people the comparison between the 2 is a moot point. I am happier watching a movie at home on a large screen without people coughing, being able to pause if I need a pi$$, mobile phones going off and other inconsiderate a$$holes ruining it for me, but each to their own.

I am not even going to open a can of worms about hifi, CD/FLAC/Vinyl, I am happy to listen to music in the car, I don't need audio perfection to enjoy a track.

The loss of something physical is a fact, but I am glad you have never ever copied/recorded anything for your own use, you are a shining paragon of virtue everyone should aspire to. Oh and you just did get involved!

urban

iTrader: (1)

Card sharing works pretty well.
Totally illegal though for the record.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

So because you don't like cinema you think the industry should lean towards home use..... nothing like objectiveity and that is nothig like objectivity. Oh and btw I used the Imax analogy as it is the best cinema can be right now, but even a normal well set up screen is 10 times the experience of a home cinema!

The default music format until a few years ago had become CD which is pretty good quality, now the default is nasty sh1tty compressed MP3s... it's just sad, but then again when most people are as th1ck as p1g**** these days they won't get the benefits of better quality media anyway so f**k them!

As you are coming across like a smert **** I thougth I'd pull yu up on this little gem from earlier.

Recording TV for the purposes of personal use is called 'timeshifting' and is perfectly legal under UK law.... now what was it you were saying about graspiing issues?

Anyway I will leave you and your band of morally bankrupt freeloaders to it.

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Wow all those typos, you sure type angry lmao.

Yup, timeshifting is legal, until you share that with someone else, loan the cassette, invite friends to watch then it all becomes a little wooly. I posed the question as most people don't know where the breakpoint is, same with charging friends to share a box office event. I don't know exactly where the breakpoint is either, as I am sure you don't.

No I don't think the industry SHOULD lean in that direction, I think demand will mean it will have to. Watching films in a cinema is still popular, but demand for home viewing is increasing, so MY OPINION is that things will move in this direction, and the faster this happens the better it will be for minimising piracy. If people get the convenience they want with a reasonable cost, piracy will become far less prevalent imho.

Your stuck up view of audio quality is just that, most people really don't desire the level of quality of an audiophile, it is not that they are thick as pig sh1te as you put it, it is that they don't notice the difference to the point which it spoils their listening. The same goes for movies, you might insist on a huge screen and sound that will blow your ear drums but most people are happy and get sufficient immersion from a 42 inch LCD and a low quality 5.1 setup. Just because you desire a certain level of quality doesn't mean everyone does, and for the most part, people DON'T desire your level of quality, even if they do have some marginal respect for it when they see it.

To you a well setup screen is 10x the quality of a home cinema, many others don't need it, and I have been in many cinemas with sh1tty out of focus projections and distorted poorly setup sound. So again YOUR analogy is that which is flawed as it assumes every cinema has a well setup system.

I won't impose my viewing satisfaction on you so please don't try to impose your viewing satisfaction on me or others.

Like I said before, I have a collection based on purchases so you can stick that comment about me being morally bankrupt right up your a$$ along with your stuck up attitude to audio/visual quality.

Oh and for the record, many laundrettes wash clothes a darn sight better than some peoples sh1tty overloaded worn out home washing machines.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

I knew that would push your button... job done

Methinks he doth protest too much comes to mind too.....

Galifrey

iTrader: (3)

Can think what you like, you have already proven how flawed your thinking is