Exactly... I can already access any of these streams through URLs they themselves publish. How is this app any different than packaging a prettily wrapped webkit with bookmarks for these streams on its default homepage? Wouldn't the fact that these URLs exist invalidate any claims CBC may have with respect to transmission/streaming? What should be doen when the corporate entity itself facilitates infringement on its own terms?
Actually, even a "prettily wrapped webkit with bookmarks for these streams on its default homepage" itself would be bordering unauthorised exploitation of their content, especially if you charged for it. This might sound weird at first but keep in mind that just because two things are technically very similar it doesn't mean that they are legally similar.
I remember back in the day when web browsers actually cost money, my ISP would sell you Netscape preconfigured to use their website as the browser's homepage. Being a Canadian ISP, they provided helpful links to the CBC website on their default homepage.
From a legal standpoint, how is that any different at all? Would you say that my ISP was also exploiting CBC's content at the time?
No, they were charging you for the browser. If they sold you a browser that could only view CBC content, CBC might have had beef. (Though remember that back then a lot of legal standards that have now been created didn't exist.) If they sold you a browser with homepage set to CBC by default and extensively marketed that product based on the CBC homepage, CBC might have had beef. If they iframed CBC on their own homepage, CBC might have had beef.
Despite some providers' (including CBC's) fanciful claims to the contrary, I don't think or recall any court decision giving control over incoming links to parties being linked to. (Compare to decisions, however controversial, regarding outgoing links, .torrent links being the classic case.)
The original version was marketed under the CBC brand. While that looked like a pretty clear cut violation, the author has gone to lengths to remove those references.
Now the product is just a web browser whose home page provides hyperlinks to the CBC website, just like my ISP did back in the day. When you buy the app, you are buying the web browser, not the CBC content. The CBC content is only accessible via hyperlinks which you, the user, have to specifically activate.
I get where you are coming from, but it is not clear where the line is drawn. If I create a web browser with a built-in search field that forwards the browser to Google, like many browsers do these days, am I liable to Google in the same way? What if I create an HTML form with a search field that points towards Google? What if I move the HTML form URL into an <a> tag?
This is what's wrong with law makers. There's a perfectly good mechanism to prevent unauthorized downloading, it's called a password. Giving a file away, like giving a pamphlet away on the street corner, implicitly gives the right to view the file. Anything else is ridiculous, absolutely unworkable, and will make for a ton of loopholes in the future.
HTML/etc is specifically designed to be device and program independent. At every turn developers are cautioned that users may receive only part of the content, that it may not render as expected, etc. There's even a mechanism for checking which client program is being used if you care. As they claim to...
If some downloading of the file is prohibited, they - not the users, should be in trouble. They know of the issue and aren't taking even the most basic of security steps. They're clearly all incompetent, from tech to manager to lawyer - all literally incapable of doing their jobs.
As a Canadian I want their wages refunded. And an apology to the app writer. We pay for CBC either way, the more people who hear it the more worthwhile those tax dollars are.
