EDMONTON – An affidavit filed in favour of Super Channel’s case against four major retailers which sell devices that are allegedly used to view unlicensed content, says the boxes are made with the sole purpose of viewing pirated content.
The written statement, filed last month, is from Eric Cole, a former commissioner on cyber security for President Barack Obama, former employee of the Central Intelligence Agency, chief technology officer at computer security company McAfee and chief scientist for aerospace company Lockheed Martin. He was asked by Super Channel’s counsel KWM Law to verify the plaintiff’s investigation.
Cole swore an oath to the accuracy of a claim – which culminated in a lawsuit filed last year against four major retailers to stop selling set-top boxes that allegedly give access to pirated content – from an investigation by Super Channel that found retail salespeople were allegedly pushing the benefits of set-top boxes as vehicles that allowed them to watch free content that otherwise would cost money to view.
But the affidavit – which “verified” that new, unused and unmodified “pirate devices” from the stores could access pirated copyrighted content – also said that “the designed purpose of the pirate devices sold by what Super Channel is calling the “4Stores” is to gain access to pirated content.
“The 4Stores pirate devices are not a viable or cost-effective use of technology for any other purpose,” Cole notes. “The value of the pirate devices is in their ability to access pirated content and not in performing any other function.” Cole said he was able to replicate and reproduce the testing and analysis done by Super Channel on the devices, which were randomly selected.
The four retailers named in the case are Best Buy, Canada Computers, Staples, and London Drugs.
Super Channel, which says its goal is to “change the culture” around content piracy, does not name the devices in its original statement of claim, but said the majority of devices that have been investigated included Kodi, a software that allows users to install “add-ons” that give them access to unlicensed content. Kodi has long denied that it’s involved in any of those add-ons; it says Kodi simply gives users an open central platform to add legitimate add-ons.
To that point, devices of this kind give users the ability to install legitimate applications as well, including streaming software like Netflix. The case could thus enter novel territory previously argued by proponents of net neutrality against website blocking: that blocking sites with allegedly pirated material may also inadvertently be calling for the banishment of websites with legitimate content as well – also known as “overblocking.”
When asked about that as a potential obstacle in the suit, president and CEO of Super Channel Don McDonald said in an interview that he didn’t agree. “I would debate that. Certainly boxes loaded with Kodi software is not being acquired for legitimate purposes.
Super Channel’s lawyer, Bill McKenzie, said in an interview the original video investigation found users were enticed to purchase the devices through the benefit of watching free content, which suggests that that’s an aim of the purchaser.
The case against site blocking, which was ordered by a Federal Court judge for the first time late last year, is being tried by TekSavvy in the appeal court (and supported by other organizations, too). McDonald said website blocking is just one method of combating piracy, which he described as the mythological three-headed Hydra that needs to be tackled from multiple different angles – like a game of whack-a-mole, he said.
While the original Super Channel claim does not name any of the questionable devices, Cole’s affidavit notes two such devices: the MyGica ATV 495 and the Himedia H8 Plus, which is also sold on Amazon. Alternative devices that strictly limit what applications can be added include the popular Roku media devices.
McDonald said other telecom companies and broadcasters have voiced their support of Super Channel’s efforts, but have not yet gotten involved.
A call to a four stores’ counsel was not returned.
The affidavit also said that the boxes that are “apparently in millions of Canadian homes are communicating with China using nefarious techniques such as information gathering and evasive communications – that are unknown to the device users.”
