• AnyStream is having some DRM issues currently, Netflix is not available in HD for the time being.
    Situations like this will always happen with AnyStream: streaming providers are continuously improving their countermeasures while we try to catch up, it's an ongoing cat-and-mouse game. Please be patient and don't flood our support or forum with requests, we are working on it 24/7 to get it resolved. Thank you.

Request BritBox? Anyone?

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Just Add Cones

Well-Known Member
Thread Starter
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
48
Likes
14
Hello,

Is there currently a way of downloading content from the streaming service called BritBox?

Thank You!
 
Other than that, you can try TubeDigger and ChrisPC Downloader. Both of them have a trial, so you can see if they even work on that service or not.
 
MovieClip said:
BritBox is available as a channel on Prime.
Click to expand...
Just one caveat: any channel you can subscribe to using Prime won't have 100% of the content that you'll find if you subscribe to it independently (and you'll find that BritBox or Starz or MAX or any of the other channels I complained to about it don't care, either). It's about 99%, though - so if you can't find the odd film you expected your BritBox subscription to have on Prime because you saw it on their site inventory, that's why.

However, you won't have a problem with AS downloading what it does provide via Prime, aside from the DRM glitches Amazon is currently throwing up. Ditto for Acorn, MAX, or any other subscription service - and almost all are offered on at least a 7-day free trial basis, too.
 
Last edited:
If you are referring to Britbox UK it has gone and its content is now part of ITVx
 
Last edited:
Yes, as Paul says, ITVX has taken over BritBox (UK).
 
artsunlimited27 said:
any channel you can subscribe to using Prime won't have 100% of the content that you'll find if you subscribe to it independently (and you'll find that BritBox or Starz or MAX or any of the other channels I complained to about it don't care, either).
Click to expand...

What about the other direction?

I've often wondered if there is content on Prime that does not exist on the 'main' location.

Is there any content on the corresponding Prime channels that does not exist on BritBox or Starz or MAX?
 
February29 said:
What about the other direction?

I've often wondered if there is content on Prime that does not exist on the 'main' location.

Is there any content on the corresponding Prime channels that does not exist on BritBox or Starz or MAX?
Click to expand...
No, because BritBox, Starz or MAX content is theirs, the only way Prime can get it is by making subscriptions available - but because those providers control the content they provide directly to Prime, it can't flow the other way.

You won't find episodes of Outlander on Prime with your Starz subscription that Starz doesn't offer all its other cable or direct subscribers, but Starz might add Spy Games to its movie lineup for cable subscribers or anyone who subscribes to it directly, and not make it available to anyone who gets it through Prime.
 
artsunlimited27 said:
No, because BritBox, Starz or MAX content is theirs, the only way Prime can get it is by making subscriptions available - but because those providers control the content they provide directly to Prime, it can't flow the other way.
Click to expand...

I'm going to have to keep a database of what I access on which side and when so that I can verify this. I understand the IP rights and all, but it's going to take more than that to convince me that a provider does not give rights to Amazon for content that it does not stream directly (on a given day).

Also I'm not suggest Prime owns the rights to the content, but I am convinced that Amazon is large enough that they have excellent negotiators, and so the terms of contract might allow for streaming something that the original provider is not presently streaming.

The language is a bit difficult here, so maybe I'm not describing this correctly.
 
February29 said:
I'm going to have to keep a database of what I access on which side and when so that I can verify this. I understand the IP rights and all, but it's going to take more than that to convince me that a provider does not give rights to Amazon for content that it does not stream directly (on a given day).

Also I'm not suggest Prime owns the rights to the content, but I am convinced that Amazon is large enough that they have excellent negotiators, and so the terms of contract might allow for streaming something that the original provider is not presently streaming.

The language is a bit difficult here, so maybe I'm not describing this correctly.
Click to expand...
So, basically you're saying that Amazon is so skilled at negotiating that they can make Starz, MAX, and BBC/ITV or any other platform provide special content for them that their cable and independent subscribers can't access - yet they're such skilled negotiators that they somehow neglect to make use of that fact in advertising the channel subscription? So - what would be the purpose in Amazon's getting that special content, if they don't alert anyone to it?

IP rights, as in copyrights, aren't the issue - I think what you actually mean here is streaming licenses. And you're suggesting that these platforms acquire streaming rights for this extra content solely for Amazon subscribers, who are paying for the channel content anyway, and have no idea that they're getting this extra content? Sorry, but that makes no sense financially. Look at it in reverse: When MAX or Starz or any other channel you can subscribe to has a streaming license expire, do you think Amazon is somehow able to show that expired content, simply because they're such skilled negotiators?

You actually have it backwards. What you'll find in a side-by-side comparison is that Amazon will come up short in terms of content, which means you'll have to pay to rent a movie that you'd otherwise get as part of your platform/channel subscription. Which means Amazon actually get to double-dip and have you pay for both the subscription and that rental cost. And when you contact them to protest that this content should be part of your subscription, they'll tell you that it's the platform/channel who provides them with the channel content.
 
artsunlimited27 said:
When MAX or Starz or any other channel you can subscribe to has a streaming license expire, do you think Amazon is somehow able to show that expired content, simply because they're such skilled negotiators?
Click to expand...

I believe what you are suggesting is that it is a fact that Amazon ALWAYS removes the content before MAX. I question if that's true.

Let's say both have ABC (a title I made-up) available for streaming. MAX decides to remove it from its main website. You're suggesting that Amazon always, 100% of the time, without question, removes ABC first, and then MAX follows.

I'm not convinced, but I don't have a specific example today.
 
February29 said:
I believe what you are suggesting is that it is a fact that Amazon ALWAYS removes the content before MAX. I question if that's true.

Let's say both have ABC (a title I made up) available for streaming. MAX decides to remove it from its main website. You're suggesting that Amazon always, 100% of the time, without question, removes ABC first, and then MAX follows.

I'm not convinced, but I don't have a specific example today.
Click to expand...
You do realize that what you're doing is creating your own improbable scenarios that have absolutely nothing to do with what I wrote, and then questioning them, right?

No, that's not what I'm suggesting. Seriously - given what I wrote, just how are you attributing this "Amazon always removes the content before MAX" nonsense to me? Given that I've already told you that in many instances movies that should be available by subscription on Prime are only accessible on Prime as rentals, just how have you extrapolated that to mean that Amazon routinely hosts expired subscriber platform content? That's some Olympic-level gymnastics, my friend.

Since you've now totally moved the goalposts to streaming licenses, let's do it. It's not a question as to whether MAX "decides" to remove content - when the platform's streaming license expires, that platform can't continue to stream expired content. Are we clear on that?

That means that if a streaming license for movie ABC that's available on MAX expires, it also expires on the MAX channel on Prime because MAX provides the MAX channel content to Amazon. Amazon doesn't pirate content from MAX, nor does it gin up its own MAX channel content independent of MAX, nor does it buy extensions of MAX's streaming licenses under MAX's (or any other platform's) name.
That's not to say that movie ABC might not be available on Amazon on Prime alone under under a different license - or available under another platform like Paramount+.
 
Last edited:
You actually have it backwards. What you'll find in a side-by-side comparison is that Amazon will come up short in terms of content, which means you'll have to pay to rent a movie that you'd otherwise get as part of your platform/channel subscription. Which means Amazon actually get to double-dip and have you pay for both the subscription and that rental cost. And when you contact them to protest that this content should be part of your subscription, they'll tell you that it's the platform/channel who provides them with the channel content.
Click to expand...
This. When I contacted Amazon about missing contents from Crunchyroll Channel they told me some contents are exclusive to Crunchyroll'S own website due to streaming license, and I told them then they shouldn't advertise and claim that the customers get "full access to the Crunchyroll library" (okay technically it does, since Crunchyroll allows you to link your Amazon account to your Crunchyroll account, but that's beside the point).

I'm not sure if this was by design, or it was simply overlooked, since some of the missing contents were added to Prime later. But on a business point of view, it's not optimum for Amazon to wrestle extra contents from channel providers. Prime channels are a bonus for Prime members, you can't use it without a Prime membership. Most people subscribe to Prime for the free 2-day shipping, but even without a Prime membership the minimal amount for free shipping is easy to achieve. Freevee also has plenty of good contents customers can access without a membership. Extra/exclusive contents alone are not enough to entice people to shell out an extra $140 a year, unless those channels are free. If it's streamer-created contents there's nothing to gain for the streamers, if it's 3rd party contents Amazon can easily obtain the streaming license for itself.
 
theresay said:
This. When I contacted Amazon about missing contents from Crunchyroll Channel they told me some contents are exclusive to Crunchyroll'S own website due to streaming license, and I told them then they shouldn't advertise and claim that the customers get "full access to the Crunchyroll library" (okay technically it does, since Crunchyroll allows you to link your Amazon account to your Crunchyroll account, but that's beside the point).

I'm not sure if this was by design, or it was simply overlooked, since some of the missing contents were added to Prime later. But on a business point of view, it's not optimum for Amazon to wrestle extra contents from channel providers. Prime channels are a bonus for Prime members, you can't use it without a Prime membership. Most people subscribe to Prime for the free 2-day shipping, but even without a Prime membership the minimal amount for free shipping is easy to achieve. Freevee also has plenty of good contents customers can access without a membership. Extra/exclusive contents alone are not enough to entice people to shell out an extra $140 a year, unless those channels are free. If it's streamer-created contents there's nothing to gain for the streamers, if it's 3rd party contents Amazon can easily obtain the streaming license for itself.
Click to expand...
Yup, they claim that because the platform controls the content they get, they can do nothing about it - and it makes no sense whatsoever that they'd then attempt to obtain additional exclusive content. I also consider it false advertising, but that and a quarter will get you etc. etc.

I get really ticked off that a film I should have access to because I subscribed to Starz was available on my cable subscription, but Prime was gonna charge me $3.99 in rental fees to watch and download it. I'm totes sure they objected strenuously to having to do that. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
theresay said:
This. When I contacted Amazon about missing contents from Crunchyroll Channel they told me some contents are exclusive to Crunchyroll'S own website due to streaming license
Click to expand...

I am not disputing that. In fact there are plenty of examples where not all the content is available to stream with Amazon's Prime.

artsunlimited27 said:
it makes no sense whatsoever that they'd then attempt to obtain additional exclusive content.
Click to expand...

I'm not suggesting "exclusive content," in that I have no way to know how many sites have the proper licensing to stream a given program.

What has not been proven is that Amazon does not have at least 1 show that the license holder does not offer on their own site. There is nothing restricting MAX from allowing Amazon to stream content and deciding not to put all the content on their own site.

Until there is some actual proof, and not just speculation, or hand waiving by people who are not insiders, it will be an unknown if there exists that one show/episode that's on Amazon and not the license holder's site. It could be on many other sites, and thus not "exclusive," which I never claimed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top