Skip to content

Kelsey Farish

  • Home
  • About
    • portfolio
    • Contact
    • T&Cs
    • Privacy Notice
  • LEGAL TOPIC
    • Confidentiality
    • Copyright
    • Data Protection
    • Expression
    • Image Rights
    • Publicity
    • Privacy
    • Reputation
    • Trade Marks
  • BUSINESS SECTOR
    • Advertising
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Brand Management
    • Deepfakes
    • Digital Platforms
    • ecommerce
    • Fashion
    • Film and TV
    • Music
    • News Media
    • Photography
    • Social Media
    • Sports
    • Start-ups
  • Student Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Buy my Bar Exam Study Schedule
    • upcoming events
    • case references
  • Home
  • About
    • portfolio
    • Contact
    • T&Cs
    • Privacy Notice
  • LEGAL TOPIC
    • Confidentiality
    • Copyright
    • Data Protection
    • Expression
    • Image Rights
    • Publicity
    • Privacy
    • Reputation
    • Trade Marks
  • BUSINESS SECTOR
    • Advertising
    • Artificial Intelligence
    • Brand Management
    • Deepfakes
    • Digital Platforms
    • ecommerce
    • Fashion
    • Film and TV
    • Music
    • News Media
    • Photography
    • Social Media
    • Sports
    • Start-ups
  • Student Resources
    • Frequently Asked Questions
    • Buy my Bar Exam Study Schedule
    • upcoming events
    • case references

TickBox sent packing as film studios and Netflix win $25 million lawsuit

October 1, 2018October 22, 2020 Kelsey Farish Leave a comment
TickBox sent packing as film studios and Netflix win $25 million lawsuit

This story was first published for the 1709 Blog, where I regularly write about copyright law in entertainment, technology and media. 

The Alliance for Creativity in Entertainment (ACE), an industry coalition of global entertainment companies and film studios, together with Netflix and Amazon, has secured a major legal victory against Tickbox, a type of so-called “Kodi Box” streaming device. As a result of the judgement and permanent injunction, which were handed down in Los Angeles, California on September 11th, Tickbox will pay $25m (£19m) in damages. Additionally, Tickbox will no longer provide software that allows users to access pirated content, and agrees to disable any such software within 24 hours.

In its coverage of the matter, Variety noted that in initial advertising, Tickbox promised customers that they could get “virtually the channels you get from your local cable company … without you having to worry about paying rental fees or monthly subscriptions.” Tickbox devices retailed for about $150 (£115).

couple love sitting evening
Photo by cottonbro on Pexels.com

In October of last year, ACE originally filed a lawsuit alleging that TickBox was promoting their streaming device as “a tool for mass infringement of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows”. By this point, TickBox had changed the advertising wording, and in its defence to the lawsuit attempted to feign innocence by “claiming that the device manufacturer could hardly be held accountable for what their customers chose to download” (nocable.org). Essentially, Tickbox’s fundamental argument was that it is merely a hardware company, and therefore no more responsible for copyright infringement than any other computer manufacturer.

Judge Fitzgerald disagreed with TickBox’s reasoning, explaining that “There is sufficient evidence that the Device can be and is used to access infringing content, and there is sufficient evidence of TickBox’s fault — primarily in the form of its advertisements and customer-support efforts. TickBox may be held responsible for the instances of infringement that would not have otherwise occurred in the absence of the Device.”

This successful action against TickBox is the first brought on by ACE that targeted a streaming device. Other similar “Kodi-Box” lawsuits remain pending, and the outcomes are likely to be similar now that this one against TickBox is on the books.

Worth noting is that one of Tickbox’s competitors, Dragon Box, was also sued earlier this year by Netflix, Amazon, and others for copyright infringement. Dragon Box then released the following statement: Instead of closing our doors and shutting down all boxes and riding off into the sunset we decided that it was in the best interest of you the customers and the company to change our business model and adapt to change and continue to try and bring you the best legal content we can and add in as many services we can to make Dragon Box the box that beats any competitors out there.

California lawcopyrightintellectual propertylawsuitlitigationmedia lawnetflix

Related Posts

Fighting words: Defamation law in England, explained
Fighting words: Defamation law in England, explained
Photograph licences: 5 things to know before you sign!
Photograph licences: 5 things to know before you sign!
Deepfakes and the Law: an excerpt from my Society of Computers & Law Webinar
Deepfakes and the Law: an excerpt from my Society of Computers & Law Webinar
Is someone stealing your Instagram posts?
Is someone stealing your Instagram posts?

Post navigation

Chinese IPRs and Trade Wars
“The Wife” and rights of attribution: an intellectual property perspective

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Kelsey Farish

Kelsey Farish

Media + Tech Lawyer

Got lost on my way to drama school, now a media and technology lawyer in London.

I write about deepfakes, publicity, privacy, advertising, the audiovisual sector, and creative industries from a legal perspective.

Follow me on Twitter

My Tweets

You might also like to read:

Facebook comments as “reviews”
Advertising ➤ October 17, 2017

Facebook comments as “reviews”

Reviews are powerful marketing tools. From making dinner reservations to buying a new pair of shoes, I very rarely part with my hard-earned cash before checking out the ratings and comments online. I also follow...

Read More
France vs Russia in media regulator showdown
Film and TV ➤ July 11, 2018

France vs Russia in media regulator showdown

France’s broadcasting regulator recently issued a warning to the French division of Russian television channel RT for falsifying facts in a programme about the use of chemical weapons in Syria. The following day, the Russian state media regulator accused French television channel France 24 of violating Russian media laws.

Read More
UK regulator to investigate social media influencers
Advertising ➤ August 22, 2018

UK regulator to investigate social media influencers

A number of celebrities and social media stars are being investigated by the Competition and Markets Authority, which says it has concerns that some influencers are failing to disclose that they are being paid for...

Read More

Subscribe

Stay up to date by subscribing and receive my posts by email.

  • Law
    • copyright
    • human rights
    • privacy law
    • trade marks
  • Fashion
    • advertising
    • celebrities
    • ecommerce
    • instagram
    • marketing
    • personality rights
  • Media and Entertainment
    • celebrities
    • cinema
    • digital media
    • free speech
    • journalism
    • music
    • sports
    • television
  • Digital Culture
    • artificial intelligence
    • image rights
    • deepfakes
    • privacy
    • reputation
© 2021Designed by Little Theme Shop