TV Box???

[motorbiking]

For the avoidance of doubt, illegally obtained evidence can be admissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.

You'd look a right tit if you said "your honour/my lord this evidence was obtained unlawfully and isn't admissible."

In law it doesn't really matter how you get hold of or access to an infringing copy your liabilities are as per s98 of the copyright designs and patents act

 

[HawkEye244]

For the avoidance of doubt, illegally obtained evidence can be admissible in both civil and criminal proceedings.

You'd look a right tit if you said "your honour/my lord this evidence was obtained unlawfully and isn't admissible."

In law it doesn't really matter how you get hold of or access to an infringing copy your liabilities are as per s98 of the copyright designs and patents act

**** sake I purposefully seperated the two out from criminal to civil but you are still trying to blur the two.

Actually read what I said and then comment please.

 

[HawkEye244]

Do you even know the difference between civil and criminal ?

 

[motorbiking]

On the subject of unlawfully gathered evidence you said...
"Any evidence gathered in such a way would not be admissible in court as the government is breaking the law by using such tactics."

and then you said

"It's not 'law' it's legislation. They are legislative powers. Any evidence gathered unlawfully is not admissible in court and trust me when I say this, if local bodies try this snooping sh1t on a person for a civil matter with unlawfully gathered information, they open themselves up to prosecution. "

and after that you ask

Do you even know the difference between civil and criminal ? yes thanks about £150k a year

have a read of this : http://www.bgja.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/02/NigelCooper.pdf
it pretty much answers your question on the admissibility of evidence obtained illegally in civil proceedings. I've already dealt with the criminal position.

 

[bolo 2]

Does this help?

"Is all evidence admissible?
In criminal proceedings, all relevant evidence presented by the parties is prima facie admissible as the UK courts have adopted an inclusionary approach towards evidence in order to favour the victim and ensure a fair trial. In a case in 1861 it was confirmed evidence is admissible even if it were stolen. The rationale for this approach is that the court considers the primary aim of the justice system to be the discovery of the truth and the unearthing of guilt. This is prioritised above the protection of the accused’s right to private life. Nevertheless the courts have discretion under s.78 Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to exclude evidence which lacks relevance and which might, by its admission, endanger trial fairness. This contrasts with the exclusionary approach of the courts of the USA to illegally obtained evidence, which prioritises the need to deter the police from unconstitutional behaviour. Although the UK courts do not wish to encourage illegally methods to obtaining evidence on the part of the police, discovering guilt is prioritised."

 

[Brigade77]

The next time I'm invited to a party . . . I'm going to Google "a bottle of wine" & see if that gets me in !

 

[Brigade77]

I'd like to add :-

Theft is relevant. I was brought up to have this overwhelming sense to know the difference between right & wrong.

My father, who never raised his hand against me, would roll in his grave if he ever thought I was stealing from Sky TV.

I was with my father on several occasions when poachers were caught on our land, sometimes we'd be helping them to carry the catch back to their cars & sometimes I'd sit & watch whilst their cars were set on fire after their legs had been broken.

If you cannot define the difference, then you are lost to this world.

Taking from a thief is not theft. In the world that I live in . . . Woopert & his Sky TV aren't the victim, they are the thieve's.

 

[EFLImpudence]

That does beg the question of why you think landowners "own" the wild animals that live or happen to stray onto their land; not to mention how people manage to "own" land in the first place.
Whose was it to sell or did William the Conqueror just dish it out and slaughter anyone who objected?


As for Woopert, he provides a service. It is not compulsory to subscribe.
The geographical restrictions to broadcasts are not the fault of the providers but Governments, who you may well class as extortionists, charging companies that are providing the services in their areas and prohibiting others.

 

[Brigade77]

That does beg the question of why you think landowners "own" the wild animals that live or happen to stray onto their land; not to mention how people manage to "own" land in the first place.
Whose was it to sell or did William the Conqueror just dish it out and slaughter anyone who objected?

Are you a Marxist?

Do you even know that you are a Marxist?

The land that my family owns . . . we can trace our title back to about 1720, which coincides remarkably with the dates that the land here-a-bouts was subject to the 'Enclosure Acts'. I'm told it was swamp before we took it on. That rings true because agriculturally it has little value, it tends to flood with remarkable ease.

But you care nothing about that because you know nothing about that. You think all landowners stole the land off of the people because you are a Marxist revolutionary who thinks that the proletariat should own the land & to hell with working it & various other flood prevention measures.

I'm just guessing here . . . but do you live in a city ?

If you'd like to come on down & perhaps attempt a better job of managing our land than we do . . . then sometimes we would welcome that. Please bear in mind that we've been doing it for 3 centuries & we can spot a bullshitter from 30 paces.

Who is your William de Conqueror?

To answer your begged question, yes, I do own the animals on my land. I own them because I care for them.

I have yet to meet anyone who cares for them as much as me.

 

[HawkEye244]

You've lost me to be honest I think we are talking at cross-purposes.

 

[mattylad]

The legalities aside....

The MXQ boxes work very well in conjunction with the "Cody" app.
You can do everything this woman on the bus said, watch all sorts.

You can also get the Amazon Fire TV if you are a prime member and watch all their contnent, subscibe to lovefilms, netflix etc.
In the supermarkets you can get now tv boxes etc.

A good internet connection is required, an antenna is not.

 

[SpannerHombre]

Pirate Bay all the way.
Well, that's what someone said in passing once.
Don't use it myself obviously

 

[mattylad]

Been there, done that.
You have to pith about downloading, then scanning, converting if needed etc.
Only then to find it's a cam or not even what was promised.

With a streaming box you choose your entertainment and hit play, if it's not right you stop it and look for another source.

 

[motorbiking]

If you upload while downloading e.g. torrenting with default settings, you commit an offence as you are illegally distributing copyrighted material. The downside of the streaming box/stick, is that the copyright holders are collectively applying to extend the current high court injunction forcing ISP to block the streaming sites. Also you are at the mercy of the manufacturer who will implement mechanisms to block the cracked devices. With a torrent, its easier to find a proxy.