Please continue any discussion on random news items here.

And the ruling...

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/android-box-free-tv-bell-rogers-1.4033741

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.

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?

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.

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.

 

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. 

15 hours ago, FrostyWinnipeg said:

How are Bell, Rogers and Quebec's Vidéotron not content providers?

True. They are both 

 

 

4 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

 

i'll see you in court.

Happy 86th birthday to great Canadian William Shatner

 

3 hours ago, The Unknown Poster said:

Happy 86th birthday to great Canadian William Shatner

 

He's aged well but maybe its the hair.

From Tulsa: police run over and kill woman shooting at them. Crazy

 

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.

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.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/license-plate-government-regulations-removal-last-name-1.4037912

 

"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, 20178 yr by FrostyWinnipeg

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, 20178 yr by iHeart

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.

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.

1 hour ago, iHeart said:

oh wait the team won't be moving to Vegas for another two years

 

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.

For anyone thinking of going to Grand Forks, Fargo, etc:

 

 

Edited March 29, 20178 yr by Jacquie

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.

There will be a critical mass eventually where its assumed people are carrying and someone will reach into their pocket and get blown away only to realize they werent carrying.  Perhaps enough instances like that will have people reconsider the insanity of arming everyone.

I was at the Minnesota State Fair a couple years ago and while walking through some clothing kiosks we all found it amusing that so many items had inside pockets specifically designed for concealing firearms.