ieExplains: What is a 'dodgy box'? Is it illegal, and what's happening with them now?

This week a Dublin man who sold 81 Android TV boxes was given an 18-month suspended sentence at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court.

Another recent court case where a Kerry pub using a 'dodgy box’ to show Premier League soccer was ordered to pay damages of €20,000 to the Sky broadcasting company has brought these devices to mainstream news again. And University College Cork Law lecturer, Dr Seán Ó Conaill, says that the days of these 'protection defeating devices' which are colloquially known as 'dodgy boxes', are numbered.

So we had a few questions for him about these.

What is a protection-defeating device or dodgy box?

"Basically it's like a tablet or phone without a screen, it's a little android device or computer."

Are they illegal?

"The ones such as Chromecast or Firestick that you can buy from an actual electronics store are not illegal. The devices themselves are fine but the problem is if you pay someone a subscription to illegally access content... if you buy them pre-loaded with apps allowing you to stream without paying for it.

How do you know the difference between a legit or 'dodgy' one if you are given one as a gift etc?

I understand people may pay as little as €40-€50 a year and get access to all the channels. If it's way, way cheaper than what companies such as Sky are actually charging then you know it's not right, it's not legitimate.

DVDs used to have warnings about unauthorised copying, lending and broadcast etc? Is this just a more modern version of that crime?

It is a form of piracy yes. It's very quirky legally because what happens is that each market sells the rights so Sky for example would pay say €2billion to get the rights to show a sporting event in Britain and Ireland. Separately the rights may be sold to say Croatia or the Middle East for much less. Then you have people finding the broadcast in another country and they're mirroring them back to the dodgy box. So while they're not exactly taking Sky's feed they're showing something that they have no right to show. That means they are not legitimate organisations. They are illegal organisations — they are black marketing. And for years there were questions on whether that was even illegal but that's been clarified and so there are criminal offences and civil offences and fines for this now.

Will we see more prosecutions? Will individual renters or householders be prosecuted?

I think so, but the thing is that it's very hard to prove. So what is happening is the onus is going back on the people who provide you with the broadband, and the broadcast companies are saying to them 'you need to be blocking this particular signal or these websites or these avenues'. Remember when the household charge taxes came in, before the property tax? [the Household Charge was introduced on January 1, 2012 and lasted for a year]. Some people didn't want to pay it but the Government had a really simple solution — they said 'you're not allowed to sell your house until this is all paid up'. It was illegal for a solicitor to sell a house if this tax wasn't paid. So they cut it off at the 'supply' there with the solicitors. And that's what the service providers are trying now — they're effectively saying 'we can't stop you getting it but we can stop your broadband provider giving you the signal to do it'.

How are streaming services going to stop this?

Remember Napster [a file-sharing app that closed down after losing numerous lawsuits]? That's eventually how they got them.. the record companies forced Eircom to give them the record of people who had been downloading. They issued a warrant and subpoena looking for that.

What else can they do?

Most people don't bother illegally downloading music anymore for example. The market adjusted — you get things like Spotify or YouTube Music. And maybe that's a bit of a lesson for the sports broadcasters for example. They're kind of copping onto it a bit — it's very expensive so some people maybe feel incentivised to break the law. So what they are starting now is breaking up the rights to different sports and things so you can pay less and just watch what you want to watch.

What about if the teenagers in a family have a dodgy box in their room and the adults don't even know about it?

Well, there are two concerns there — if they are using your connection in your house then are you liable? And also are they liable personally? But yes if they're your children and using your broadband in your home then it's definitely your responsibility.

Who does it really hurt if someone doesn't pay a few euro to a huge broadcasting corporation or film production company?

People might feel there is a bit of a disconnect between 'you' and 'them' as it's not like you are taking money directly out of someone's wallet. But for example with soccer, by not paying Sky the subscription, you're contributing to reducing the amount that Sky might pay up the next time to show the matches which will then eventually reduce the amount of money invested in local football. There won't be a new pitch at the club down the road because they didn't get the money from the association who didn't get the money from Sky because some people are using dodgy boxes. So there is a knock-on consequence in there. And there's the exact same argument that you're ultimately impacting the TV or movie industry by not paying for content.

Where else might there be consequences?

Well, if there's a criminal offence then the Gardaí and the DPP could be involved. I understand there have been cases where people were selling dodgy boxes and they weren't paying tax. So streaming companies may report you to Gardaí who could prosecute you. Some companies don't want to be seen to be doing that though. So they want to disincentivise it. They would want to work with the likes of Vodafone and Virgin and ask how many people are using their service to illegally access content.

So are dodgy boxes on 'borrowed time' now?

Essentially yes. But it's more likely to be cut off at a higher level than going after one individual.

This article was first published in October 2023.