IIRC ITV4 used to show highlights, but it seems to have been dropped.
I know it's available from BT, unfortunately I don't have cable, satellite or subscription TV.
Anyone know where I can watch it?
|
|
The highlights are on Channel 5. Usually at 19:00hrs on the Monday or Tuesday after the event.
|
|
... and the Rally Argentina preview was on "Spike" at 10;00hrs this morning. Spike is Channel 31 on my Freeview TV.
|
This is good if you don't mind paying...
plus.wrc.com/en/
edit: Sorry, just noticed you said on Freeview.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Sat 22 Apr 17 at 16:26
|
If you have an HD tv and wifi and feel inclined to spend £55 on ebay you can buy an unlocked Amazon firestick with a Kodi add on .
8< snip. Details of what you can do with it, add ons, etc, removed.
There are plenty of websites out there that detail that sort of thing, without outlining it here.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 19:20
|
|
Helicopter, you are a thief and people like you put my firm out of business.
|
Hope you can back up your libel Zippy or I will see you in court for that ill considered comment.
I carefully checked the legality before purchase.
The watching of such material for ones own enjoyment is legal according to the European court of Justice.
Downloading and distribution however is another matter and the Premier league has successfully taken a case to court where a seller distributed boxes to pubs to show football to the customers.
An apology from you is in order
Last edited by: helicopter on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 17:08
|
>> Hope you can back up your libel Zippy or I will see you in court
>> for that ill considered comment.
>>
>> I carefully checked the legality before purchase.
>>
>> The watching of such material for ones own enjoyment is legal according to the European
>> court of Justice.
Watching it on your own is legal, BUT the process of getting it, i.e. loading Kodi on a firestick, (in fact procuring it in any way other than the producer intended) is not legal and an offence under DMCA.
|
Helicopter. No Apology!
You are watching video that has been copied illegally. It may not be against the law but that is because the law hasn't caught up with the crime.
How would the owner of this website like it if I stole his code and set up my own website. I haven't taken anything tangible but it is still theft.
This is why I abhor streaming where the copyright owner does not permit it...
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=23853&m=525462
Furthermore, you have no idea where the money goes when you buy such kit. It could be funding drugs, enforced prostitution and terrorism.
|
You called me a thief within your post
That is a direct libel
.
Apology required
|
Watching streamed content is not illegal. Making money out of facilitating someone else doing it is.
So one may or may not like someone streaming, may or may not agree with it, may or may not think it is moral, but they are not a thief for doing it and to accuse them of being so wrong.
And we have no idea where any of the money we spend on anything ultimately ends up.
|
Oh, and libel has to be shown to be both published and damaging to a person's reputation.
An comment in a public forum to an anonymous username which cannot be easily identified probably fails the test.
|
You are watching video that has been copied illegally. It may not be against the
>> law but that is because the law hasn't caught up with the crime.
That doesn't make much sense.
|
|
In the same way that taking a car for a joyride never used to be illegal but still wrong. So a new crime of taking without consent was passed.
|
|
Well its not really the same thing. And it's either illegal or legal, which one is it?
|
|
Still waiting for the apology ....
|
>> Still waiting for the apology ....
I think you need to be occupying the moral high ground to get one of those. Nicking stuff off the net isn't that place.
Don't get me wrong, I don't occupy that high place either, but if someone berates me for it I just shrug and accept it.
|
Selling a media player (such a FireTV stick) with Kodi on it is not illegal. Doing so with the add-ons that access/stream copyrighted material to the device however is - and rightly so.
Of course you don't need to pay over the odds to get Kodi onto a FireTV stick yourself. It's a free app. You can install it on your PC or Mac as well. There's some useful add-ons that don't risk breaking laws too. No need to unlock/hack the FireTV stick at all.
In the case of helicopter the real thief was the person selling this device for £55 on eBay. I bought my Kodi FireTV stick for £25 direct from Amazon.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 18:09
|
The point that you miss rtj70 is that I have not broken any law and yet I have been libelled, being branded a thief by a someone on here who simply writes twaddle without engaging one of his two brain cells.
The 2014 ruling by the European court fully backs me up. What I am doing by streaming is currently legal.
The definition of theft is to permanently deprive and what others may do by selling or downloading is another matter as I pointed out several posts ago.
|
OK, so the forum consensus says that watching video that you have not paid for and without the consent of the copyright holder is not a crime. Therefore Helicopter, you have my apology.
I will add though, that what you are doing is morally wrong. It is depriving those people and organisations the money that they are rightly due because they have risked capital to make the films, videos and programs that you are watching without paying for.
|
Apology accepted...
I suggest you stick to your name and keep it zipped in future....
|
|
As I said you dont occupy the high ground to start slagging off other people,. so leave the faux offended act at home and stop being a pillock.
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 18:40
|
>> As I said you dont occupy the high ground to start slagging off other people,.
>> so leave the faux offended act at home and stop being a pillock.
>>
Succintly put. I agree.
|
And yet its OK for you to be belligerently rude as well as freely watching stuff that you do not have permission from the owners to do so. It may not be illegal but it is not right!
And it shows you in your true colours Helicopter. Insults, watching material that you hadn't paid for. I wouldn't trust you. Ever.
|
And that's a good point Zippy. Something can be both morally wrong and legal. E.g. Abortion IMHO.
|
>>And that's a good point Zippy. Something can be both morally wrong and legal. E.g. Abortion IMHO.
I wholeheartedly agree, to the extent that my eldest has promised to me that they will never preform such a procedure unless the patient's life is immediately at risk.
|
>> And that's a good point Zippy. Something can be both morally wrong and legal. E.g.
>> Abortion IMHO.
>>
Err, No! The morals of stealing (yes stealing, depriving the producer and distributer of revenue) and the morals of abortion are not even in the same ballpark. I can't even conceive ( Clever that) of them being in the same argument.
|
I didn't say they were in the same moral ballpark. You did.
E.g. Means for example. It was merely an example of where something in my view is both legal and immoral. Just in the same way that you considered someone viewing stuff that normally would be paid for for free "theft" even though it appears to be perfectly legal.
It had equivalence of logical argument, not level of morality. Sorry. I thought that was obvious.
|
>> I didn't say they were in the same moral ballpark. You did.
>> E.g. Means for example.
So you were using an example that was not an example you mean?
>> It had equivalence of logical argument, not level of morality. Sorry. I thought that was
>> obvious.
There is nothing logical about an argument that uses theft and abortion as side by side examples.
I use this web site for free. Is it theft if I replicate this web site, strip out all your advertising revenue and dilute your hit rate?
Last edited by: Zero on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 20:37
|
Oh dear.
On examples. The best examples use the extreme cases to make the point.
It was a good example of something being in my opinion morally wrong because it carries a high moral element and yet is legal. It was used to make the equivalence with something less morally certain like theft by use of video material whilst at the same time as being legal.
Clear thinking does not conflate the issues as both you and zippy have done.
Your example of using this site's material doesn't add anything to this argument even though it may be a concept closer to your heart.
|
>> Clear thinking does not conflate the issues as both you and zippy have done.
>>
>> Your example of using this site's material doesn't add anything to this argument even though
>> it may be a concept closer to your heart.
In my opinion, yours is not an example of clear thinking. The use of extreme unrelated cases never is, merely an indication of inability to see the issue at hand.
My example is far more relevant because it is related, not a completely unlinked example. One I notice you didn't or maybe couldn't answer. As for being a concept close to my heart? Why would your intellectual property be of any interest to me at all?
I'll leave it there.
|
>> OK, so the forum consensus says that watching video that you have not paid for
>> and without the consent of the copyright holder is not a crime.
Not the forum consensus, but The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has confirmed that watching pirated video streams online does not break any copyright laws.
www.digital-digest.com/news-63934-Watching-Pirated-Streams-Is-Legal-Rules-EU-Court.html
We've had this discussion before, so rather than explaining it all again, I'll just link to the previous time.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=23751&m=523228
I have however edited Helicopter's post above to remove the extended details of what you can do with kodi.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 19:34
|
Zippy our forum rules do not allow for personal insults. Calling someone a thief falls into this.
You could have got your feelings across without using such accusatory language. E.g
"I consider use of a device in this manner to be theft and taking away jobs ...."
That kind of makes your point in strong terms but doesn't label helicopter a "thief".
If you won't give an apology, as it is a strong view you hold and consider correct, can you accept a retraction and rephrase in language of your own along the lines I have indicated?
Edit : you guys seem to have sorted it out while I was writing this.
Oh, and the name calling stuff works both ways.
Last edited by: car4play on Sun 23 Apr 17 at 18:45
|
>> Zippy our forum rules do not allow for personal insults. Calling someone a thief falls
>> into this.
You'd soon change your tune if someone was streaming your stuff without permission.
|
No. Eg. Even in court a judge won't say someone is a liar even if they are lying. They say something like "I did not consider Mr xxx to be a reliable witness" or "I did not consider his testimony to be reliable..."
So I still stand by what I said even if I agree with zippy.
|
Today, I am catching up on work at home and am writing a report on a company. They have been complicit to a financial crime to the extent that our financial crime office will have a copy of my findings for 09:00 tomorrow. Their banking facilities will be suspended with all of the consequences.
The problem is that the company does not think that they have done anything wrong. It happens all of the time. Lots of companies do it and lots of companies get away with it.
I see this sort of thing all the time and it is frustrating. The companies actions are depriving others of income and gaining advantage from doing so. Without taking action we would be condoning money laundering, graft, fraud and bribery.
I have been doing this for some years now and I think the moral compass of many businesses and many individuals is deteriorating because I see much more activity that requires financial crime reporting than ever before and it is nearly always by twisting the simple everyday activities and transactions beyond what is acceptable because it "never harms anyone". Well actually it does! Almost like being racist but by calling it banter, it suddenly doesn't appear to be, but of course still is.
I suppose getting caught up in writing this report and seeing the activity described above lead me to calling out something that is immoral to being illegal.
|
>> writing a report on
>> a company. They have been complicit to a financial crime to the extent that our
>> financial crime office will have a copy of my findings for 09:00 tomorrow. Their banking
>> facilities will be suspended with all of the consequences.
>>
>>
No. Noooo. Noooooo
Innocent until proven guilty by a Court of Law.
|
>>Innocent until proven guilty by a Court of Law.
Of course. To the same extent that a bobby knows a crook is guilty but not officially so until found guilty in court.
Financial institutions will not wait until the court case. If they suspect financial crime they must act and to protect themselves they will suspend banking facilities, court case or not.
|
>> The highlights are on Channel 5. Usually at 19:00hrs on the Monday or Tuesday after
>> the event.
Found it thanks! Don't know how I managed to miss the previous rounds.
|
WRC anywhere on freeview? - Arctophile
