MuViBox - is it legal and actually works ? Guessing no sense I have to ask

[pcslookout]

Guessing no sense I have to ask.

https://www.muviboxes.com/

If it is real how come I never heard of it?

 

[Charmonium]

MuviBox is just a media player. Think of it as an iPod which streams music and videos. In order for you to stream the content to your iPod you must have iTunes stream it to you. In essence, the iPod is the MuviBox and iTunes are the Add-ons inside the MuviBox Player which allow you to watch the content that are hosted by third parties.

https://www.muviboxes.com/how-it-works

Sounds like it's just an interface for torrents. Their claim of having every tv show and movie from the 70's on seems a bit optimistic but there are probably sites like pirate bay that have a lot of that stuff.

 

[jtvang125]

They're claiming that since you're not downloading and just streaming it's not illegal. Not sure if that's going to hold up in court. Are the packets sent any differently when it's stream than if it's downloaded?

 

[Charmonium]

Probably not but it's obvious on the network when you're uploading as well as downloading. You become another peer serving up data.

I could be wrong about this but I seem to recall reading that what they normally get you on is the upload not the download since at that point you really are file sharing. When you're just downloading it's more like reading a magazine at a newstand. The text is freely available and as long as no one tells you to buy the magazine or get out, you're not doing anything wrong.

 

[NTMBK]

It's piracy.

 

[zinfamous]

How is this different than a street vendor selling tickets to watch their pirated VHS/DVD movies on a display that they own?

Or is there no subscription service?

How about the street vendor selling you a TV that directly streams their pirated/regionally licensed content? Does that sound legal?

 

[Blackjack200]

They're claiming that since you're not downloading and just streaming it's not illegal. Not sure if that's going to hold up in court. Are the packets sent any differently when it's stream than if it's downloaded?

Sounds like a bulletproof legal argument to me. Amazing that no one thought of this loophole before.

 

[ImpulsE69]

It's all illegal however:

If it uses torrents to stream this will get your ISP and you ding'ed. You are streaming yes, but you are still connected to the torrent.

It says 'hosted by 3rd parties, which you can do w/o this with things such as things in Kodi, Plex, etc that use stream sites and not torrents. Still illegal, but not something they go after you for.

 

[momeNt]

Huge ripoff btw. This is a repackaged $60 roku with a skinned over Kodi pre-installed.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Yeah sounds illegal to me. That said if you use a VPN I think you're ok. They look for torrent packets but with vpn they'll just see encrypted data.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Yeah sounds illegal to me. That said if you use a VPN I think you're ok. They look for torrent packets but with vpn they'll just see encrypted data.

They aren't even looking for packets. The copyright hounds look at the IP's connected to the torrent. With the VPN you'd be connecting via another IP, but ultimately, the whole notion you are protected due to VPN is a lie for most of them. Question becomes how badly they want it.

 

[Blackjack200]

They aren't even looking for packets. The copyright hounds look at the IP's connected to the torrent. With the VPN you'd be connecting via another IP, but ultimately, the whole notion you are protected due to VPN is a lie for most of them. Question becomes how badly they want it.

Aren't VPNs generally expected to protect the privacy of their users? Not talking about Jim Bob's free VPN, but reputable paid services.

 

[momeNt]

Aren't VPNs generally expected to protect the privacy of their users? Not talking about Jim Bob's free VPN, but reputable paid services.

It's moreso that they don't keep any logs of connections or personal account information (name, email address, etc), and that they are headquartered in areas that shield them from subpoenas. So even if they wanted to comply with a search, they would have nothing to provide most likely.

 

[ImpulsE69]

Aren't VPNs generally expected to protect the privacy of their users? Not talking about Jim Bob's free VPN, but reputable paid services.

They are expected to, but ultimately if you are paying for them, there's a record somewhere and if they get subpeona'd all bets are off. It's happened before.

 

[jtvang125]

They'll fight it but if pressed hard enough they'll cave. The question is if the IP owner is willing to go that far because I'm sure there's no shortage of people not behind a vpn.

 

[Blackjack200]

They are expected to, but ultimately if you are paying for them, there's a record somewhere and if they get subpeona'd all bets are off. It's happened before.

Has it happened with VPNs that claim to not keep logs? Genuinely curious.

 

[Charmonium]

Here's an article from 2014 that tries to clarify. Don't think much has changed since then legally speaking.

When the user downloads even part of a file — called "pseudo-streaming" — it counts as a copy of copyrighted material, which is illegal. And when the user streams content as a "public performance" — namely, when it's shown to a substantial number of people outside the normal family circle and its close acquaintances — it also constitutes a copyright violation.

Outside of these cases, accessing unlicensed streamed content is generally legal.

On the other side of the screen, however, uploading or posting unlicensed streamed content is illegal — even if it's free, according to Gibson. "That's the most basic part of copyright — protection of your work. When someone uploads a video online, they're literally making a copy," he said.

http://www.businessinsider.com/are-streaming-sites-legal-2014-4

 

[momeNt]

Has it happened with VPNs that claim to not keep logs? Genuinely curious.

https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-provider-pia-exits-russia-server-seizures-160712/

Private Internet Access is informing users that some of its servers in Russia may have been seized by the authorities. The company believes that it may have been targeted due to its strict no-logging policy, something which puts it at odds with Russian data-retention rules.

https://torrentfreak.com/vpn-providers-no-logging-claims-tested-in-fbi-case-160312/

“All of the responses from [email provider] 1&1, Facebook, Twitter, and Tracfone have been traced by IP address back to a company named London Trust Media [doing business as] PrivateInternetAccess.com.”

By this point in the complaint it’s clear that even without the IP address information the FBI already had enough evidence to pin the threats on McWaters. Nevertheless, they ordered PIA to hand over its logs.

“A subpoena was sent to London Trust Media and the only information they could provide is that the cluster of IP addresses being used was from the east coast of the United States,” the FBI’s complaint reads.

“However, London Trust did provide that they accept payment for their services through credit card with a vendor company of Stripe and/or Amazon. They also accept forms of payment online through PayPal, Bitpay, Bit Coin, Cash You, Ripple, Ok Pay, and Pay Garden.”

In the event the FBI was unable to link McWaters to any payment to the company. However, they did find a payment to another provider.

“Although the investigation has not revealed any payment by McWaters to London Trust, he did make a purchase from AnchorFree Inc [HotspotShield VPN] on October 23, 2015,” the complaint notes.