Piracy Problem? Block the Entire App Store


May 13, 2013
Apps that enable users to watch IPTV services are nothing new. However now BGR is reporting that two Australian media companies are looking to reduce the use of paid pirate IPTV boxes, not by going after the manufacturers or sellers, but by shutting down the app stores that they use. The stores are an alternative to the Google Play store, and provide APKs for all sorts of legitimate Android apps, however a Hong Kong based TV firm and Roadshow Films don't seem to care.

Sweeping legislation like this could be a very slippery slope. Only time will tell if this gets passed, and if it does, what ramifications it will end up having.

The company acknowledged that many of those marketplaces, which are somewhat akin to the Play marketplace offered by Google for Android devices, contain apps that aren’t specifically focused on copyright infringement — for example, Netflix and YouTube apps.

However, the company argues that the primary purpose of the marketplaces is to facilitate copyright infringement and that the non-infringing apps can be downloaded elsewhere.
Instead of making it easier and cheaper for people to access content (and likely triple their profits), they prop their foot on the desk & take aim with a shotgun...
Gotta say the whole "oh no people are watch TV for free" level of "piracy" really ranks low on my whole Give-a-shitometer. Slightly more for premium pay channels like HBO and absolutely zero fucks given for OTA channels
This is good for those "legitimate" app stores - Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon. There have been piracy based apps on those stores in the past (and probably now). So, I'd assume that if one gets through the filters and is on the app store, it's fair game to get the Google/Apple/etc. store shut down as it'd have a bad app?

Good intentions, real shitty approach.
Stepping over legal process and business rights has become common practice for media/broadcasting groups these days.
I am conflicted on this, if the store follows due diligence on being ledigimate and tries to keep its content on the up and up then this is bad. If however if some 80% of the content is pirated/illegal and they scoff at take down requests then they aren’t even trying to pretend to be an actual store.

At least if they pretend to give a shit offer some lip service and take down the pirated stuff after they “investigate” the issue then they are at least putting up a front. I mean if it takes a month to “investigate” and the other party has had enough time to change their name so hey can immediately re upload then so be it. At least they took down the reported infringed content.
Ever watched Pirated TV? It is incredibly shitty quality..Honestly it in itself should be considered a punishment.
Ever watched Pirated TV? It is incredibly shitty quality..Honestly it in itself should be considered a punishment.
When Fairplay Canada filed a request to the CRTC for control over website takedowns and enhancing internet censorship in the context of illegal video streaming services (non-copyright holders), I filed against the request citing a similar opinion. e.g. If your video delivery service is so bad that your competition is a sketchy website with popup ads, javascript crypto miners, terrible video quality, and hit or miss greasemonkey scripts, then you truly never had any claim to the projected profit losses which you are using to justify this legislative meddling.

Any further investment in this project to control the internet in the name of protecting whatever terrible service you have is nothing more than anti-capitalism. Instead, re-invest in your own industry and infrastructure and rise above the illegal competition as if they were irrelevant, and they will become irrelevant.
You say the Great Firewall of China can't be topped? Hold my Fosters!