The Kodi fight has begun

[Sauron]

3 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I can't see the Film Industry along with Netflix, Hulu, etc just letting Kodi's popularity grow.  I remember the first time I heard about Kodi thinking how is this not shut down already?

Kodi is not a substitute for Netflix, they are different in many ways. Most importantly, Kodi itself does not sell you copyrighted material. You can use it to connect to services similar to Netflix without a browser, but the software by itself is completely free and open source. The "problem" arises if I use a plugin that connects to a website that distributes content illegally, but that's not Kodi's fault.

 

You could argue that having your box preloaded with such plugins encourages piracy, but we all know it's bullshit. The lost sales argument is bollocks, just like the idea that by installing a plugin (that does something you could do with a browser anyway) somehow makes the guy who installed it responsible for the end user's actions.

[JAKEBAB]

1 minute ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

 

 

Are you talking about video quality? If so it depends on the repository and for a large amount of titles 1080p is available.

Even for live tv?

[Sauron]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

I know but really isn't the fee like 120 pounds a year or something with no ads? Obviously if you are in really hard times it makes sense but other than that it's almost unwatchable.

The streams for kodi.

Kodi doesn't provide the streams, it just plays what it is told to. If the source is of poor quality the stream will suck, but that's not Kodi's fault. Twitch is available at full quality for example.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

Even for live tv?

Oh, ok. I've never seen or tried any of the live tv addons/repos.

[Master Disaster]

6 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

The quality is crap anyway why would u want this?

Oh contrair my friend, just last night I watched a few movies in 1080p on my Shield TV running Kodi with a "build" installed. 

 

Obviously don't expect to be watching brand new movies in anything other than cam/scr quality for if your willing to wait a few months the quality is just as good as any other source. 

 

For TV shows its insane, 1 hour after Season 10 of TBBT premiered last week it was on my box, ready to stream in full 1080p.

[JAKEBAB]

3 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Kodi doesn't provide the streams, it just plays what it is told to. If the source is of poor quality the stream will suck, but that's not Kodi's fault. Twitch is available at full quality for example.

I know, i should of clarified in my original post, im strictly talking about this being a replacement for the 120 pound fee and using this for live tv.

[Master Disaster]

Just now, JAKEBAB said:

I know, i should of clarified in my original post, im talking strictly about this being a replacement for the 120 pound fee and using this for live tv.

IPTV is hit & miss. My mate subscribes to a premium provider and he gets EVERY channel in Europe at 720p but it costs him £120 a year for the privilege. The free ones, nah. It's like streaming a 480p movie onto a 1080p device and really stuttery. IPTV is great if your willing to pay but otherwise stick to your freeview. 

[PlayStation 2]

You know what, this is the United Kingdom. They're done some really stupid lawsuits before so it's not surprising that he's getting sued for what is basically being able to use something for illegitimate purposes when it's not the intention.

[TidaLWaveZ]

Off topic, but I just heard that Pepe the Frog has just been declared a Hate Symbol in America.

 

I'd make a new thread about it but I'm far too lazy.

[imPixelTV]

4 minutes ago, Dan Castellaneta said:

You know what, this is the United Kingdom. They're done some really stupid lawsuits before so it's not surprising that he's getting sued for what is basically being able to use something for illegitimate purposes when it's not the intention.

this is a country where they throw fuckers in court for not having a tv licence

even if you dont watch the bbc

[manikyath]

3 hours ago, Vigilante505 said:

Money money money. Its all about money. 

the problem isnt that.

 

the issue is these kodi settop boxes are being marketed as "free tv watching" boxes, indirectly advertising piracy as it's main purpose, while kodi isnt even really designed to do that. it's simply a very settop-box-like media player, and there's 3rd party plugins allowing the end used to do these hideous things. both kodi, these boxes (however, them shipping with kodi may be a bit grey zone as well, i'm not sure on the specifics, although unrelated here ), and the majority of kodi plugins are perfectly legal means of consuming content, it's just that the people who do the marketing for these REALLY are going for the money grab, which in turn seriously pisses off the cable guys, who see the advertisement, and see the meaning of enabling average joe's piracy habits behind it.

[Curious Pineapple]

13 minutes ago, JAKEBAB said:

I know but really isn't the fee like 120 pounds a year or something with no ads? Obviously if you are in really hard times it makes sense but other than that it's almost unwatchable.

It's £130 odd, but it is for ANY live broadcast. No matter who's content is is, or how you watch it, if you can watch a stream that isn't "on demand" content then you legally need a license to watch it. The law is that broad that it covers live Youtube streams, again no matter who made the content. They recently had the regs changed so that even watching BBC content on demand requires a license. It is as broad as "you need a license to watch any BBC content on demand, no matter what device or the method of watching it". It can be interpreted as being required to watch a DVD of anything the BBC have made. If it was about getting paid for what they make then it would be a subscription service, but as there is a growing number of people who won't watch anything the BBC have touched, they would get far less than they do for harassing people and making them sign confessions for something they have not done.

[Donut417]

10 hours ago, Minibois said:

These are the Kodi machines that can stream TV and shows and stuff right?

Yeah, its a lot of pirated shit. I have Kodi installed on my computer. Although Kodi on its own, doesn't do piracy. When you install the "Unsupported Add ons' It adds access to pirated material. As such, Im surprised this didnt happen sooner. 

[Vigilante505]

10 hours ago, TidaLWaveZ said:

I can't see the Film Industry along with Netflix, Hulu, etc just letting Kodi's popularity grow.  I remember the first time I heard about Kodi thinking how is this not shut down already?

Exactly. If people are getting their paid content for free somewhere else...heads are going to roll.

[Zodiark1593]

46 minutes ago, Donut417 said:

Yeah, its a lot of pirated shit. I have Kodi installed on my computer. Although Kodi on its own, doesn't do piracy. When you install the "Unsupported Add ons' It adds access to pirated material. As such, Im surprised this didnt happen sooner. 

Considering a PC can do the job even quicker (and can't be completely controlled by outside sources to boot), it's a wonder UK even allows the general public use of them.

[rcarteraz]

This was bound to happen. Same with anything that is abused/used for a purpose it was not created for. Kodi has been trying very hard to distance themselves from this activity. On numerous occasions they've posted on their website warning of these devices and urging people to report them whenever they see them.

[paddy-stone]

Haven't read all this thread, but just want to clarify something. Mentioning kodi and this court case is essentially wrong, the title should be changed. The fact that these boxes that were sold had been modified to link to TV/Movie streams is more important... kodi had nothing to do with it really... it's like saying that GMC trucks were in a court battle because people used their cars/trucks for robbing banks. OK not a great analogy, but my point is you can't mention x company in the same sentence as court case/fight as it's mis-leading as kodi has nothing to do with it really.

I have no judgement here one way or the other... I use kodi daily, but don't use it to stream "illegal" content. Anyone that uses these type of boxes or just a regular PC or whatever and doesn't use a VPN is asking for trouble if they live in a country that logs ISP traffic. That has nothing to do with this I know, as this case is about "selling" of the boxes rather than catching people that use them, but just wanted to make a point that streaming/downloading "illegal" content and not paying £25-35 a year for a VPN is just plain stupid IMO.

[Donut417]

56 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

Haven't read all this thread, but just want to clarify something. Mentioning kodi and this court case is essentially wrong, the title should be changed. The fact that these boxes that were sold had been modified to link to TV/Movie streams is more important... kodi had nothing to do with it really... it's like saying that GMC trucks were in a court battle because people used their cars/trucks for robbing banks. OK not a great analogy, but my point is you can't mention x company in the same sentence as court case/fight as it's mis-leading as kodi has nothing to do with it really.

I have no judgement here one way or the other... I use kodi daily, but don't use it to stream "illegal" content. Anyone that uses these type of boxes or just a regular PC or whatever and doesn't use a VPN is asking for trouble if they live in a country that logs ISP traffic. That has nothing to do with this I know, as this case is about "selling" of the boxes rather than catching people that use them, but just wanted to make a point that streaming/downloading "illegal" content and not paying £25-35 a year for a VPN is just plain stupid IMO.

Kodi is a part of this though. BitTorrent doesn't have to be used for piracy. But every time the Pirate bay or another pirate torrent site is brought up, the MPAA and the RIAA want bit torrent to die as a whole. They dont give a fuck if they designed the service to pirate or not. The fact is, if a majority of people use it that way. Even though XMBC is not involved in piracy, Im sure the powers that be will state they are at fault. 

[paddy-stone]

Just now, Donut417 said:

Kodi is a part of this though. BitTorrent doesn't have to be used for piracy. But every time the Pirate bay or another pirate torrent site is brought up, the MPAA and the RIAA want bit torrent to die as a whole. They dont give a fuck if they designed the service to pirate or not. The fact is, if a majority of people use it that way. Even though XMBC is not involved in piracy, Im sure the powers that be will state they are at fault. 

That may be the case with companies/governments that have an agenda or are just not informed in tech matters, but the fact remains that you shouldn't hold a company liable for what others use it for unless it is completely unsafe such as the samsung galaxy 7 note, lol.

Look how many fatalities are caused by cars etc and see how much money is ebing spent on trying to make roads/cars safer compared to the amount of money that is being lobbied towards making products illegal for the sake of the music/film industries etc... I'm not saying that doing illegal downloading etc is great, I'm just saying look at how money is king vs human life.

[Donut417]

18 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

That may be the case with companies/governments that have an agenda or are just not informed in tech matters, but the fact remains that you shouldn't hold a company liable for what others use it for unless it is completely unsafe such as the samsung galaxy 7 note, lol.

Look how many fatalities are caused by cars etc and see how much money is ebing spent on trying to make roads/cars safer compared to the amount of money that is being lobbied towards making products illegal for the sake of the music/film industries etc... I'm not saying that doing illegal downloading etc is great, I'm just saying look at how money is king vs human life.

The reason Piracy is a big deal in the United State. Is the United State Constitution protects works. So the basis of Copyrights and Trademarks are part of the Highest laws of the land. While I do see your point and agree that company's who make products that are used to bad purposes should not be held accountable. Its up to the law to make the decision on who liable and who not. 

 

https://www.dslreports.com/shownews/Judge-Upholds-25-Million-Piracy-Verdict-Against-Cox-137634

 

If an ISP can be held accountable to piracy. Then Kodi can, not saying I support this, but the courts say its so. This could be used at ammo against XMBC to either stop piracy on Kodi or to kill the project all together. The big issue is that Politicians and Judges dont understand technology. Your right, money is king over all else. Thats the nature of business. The real issue here the Hollywood refuses to change its business model. Generally in a free market, the customers can cause companies to change how they offer goods. We the consumer who have the money can say, this is how we want it. Instead Hollywood lobbies and uses the law to protect a business strategy that no longer works. The same way Cable Companies are doing it, but adding caps to broadband connection.  

[paddy-stone]

I agree, same here in the UK unfortunately, in fact we are worse off as we don't even have the right to rip mp3s etc of our own legally purchased items, unlike you guys in the US that can legally make a copy for backup purposes.

I really wish they would start getting rid of the old wrinklies that know next to nothing or completely nothing about some subjects.. I mean what's the point in them making a decision on something they know little/nothing about?

They might as well employ garbage men as judges, at least sometimes they might make a correct decision then... i'm not knocking garbage men by the way, some of them are actually quite smart, it was more to point out the difference in what wages those two are

[Donut417]

8 minutes ago, paddy-stone said:

I agree, same here in the UK unfortunately, in fact we are worse off as we don't even have the right to rip mp3s etc of our own legally purchased items, unlike you guys in the US that can legally make a copy for backup purposes.

I really wish they would start getting rid of the old wrinklies that know next to nothing or completely nothing about some subjects.. I mean what's the point in them making a decision on something they know little/nothing about?

They might as well employ garbage men as judges, at least sometimes they might make a correct decision then... i'm not knocking garbage men by the way, some of them are actually quite smart, it was more to point out the difference in what wages those two are

The thing is too, many people in the US dont respect copy right laws or are even aware of them. For example when I worked at Sam's Club, our photo techs were good about catching professional photos. For those who dont know, Photo's have a 70 year copy right attached. So people would get in to arguments with us on us holding photos because by LAW we needed permission from the copy right holder (Photographer) to give those photos. So the customer would have to submit a copy right release form to us, and we would have to hold it for at least 5 years. But most American's are complete dumb asses and dont know whats in the constitution. 

 

One dumb ass lady said she "Didnt like our rules" I was like its FEDERAL LAW. Not Sam's Club rules you idiot. At least that what I wanted to say. People would aruge about it to, one guy got mad at me because his copy right release was on the disk with the photos. Well he couldnt print it at the store. Got made at me, because I was suppose to believe he had the release and would bring it in later. Sorry ass hole, Im not committing a felony for you. I dont care your kid was born today and these are photos of that. The Law is the law, fucking deal with it. 

[paddy-stone]

14 hours ago, Donut417 said:

The thing is too, many people in the US dont respect copy right laws or are even aware of them. For example when I worked at Sam's Club, our photo techs were good about catching professional photos. For those who dont know, Photo's have a 70 year copy right attached. So people would get in to arguments with us on us holding photos because by LAW we needed permission from the copy right holder (Photographer) to give those photos. So the customer would have to submit a copy right release form to us, and we would have to hold it for at least 5 years. But most American's are complete dumb asses and dont know whats in the constitution. 

 

One dumb ass lady said she "Didnt like our rules" I was like its FEDERAL LAW. Not Sam's Club rules you idiot. At least that what I wanted to say. People would aruge about it to, one guy got mad at me because his copy right release was on the disk with the photos. Well he couldnt print it at the store. Got made at me, because I was suppose to believe he had the release and would bring it in later. Sorry ass hole, Im not committing a felony for you. I dont care your kid was born today and these are photos of that. The Law is the law, fucking deal with it. 

Yeah, I agree with you, it's also a problem with there being different copyright laws though for different regions/countries. There really needs to be a worldwide copyright law and usage rights that everyone can get behind (all regions/countries), not have it come down to there being more monetization from some regions. Also stop this lobbying that goes on from MPAA and such to governments/ministers/senators etc to fight for them to get laws passed/stopped etc... lets just have ONE law and ONE world that everyone can agree on and stop the bullshit.

I actually do rip my own copies and such, fuck the laws basically... If I have paid for a blu-ray and want to keep that pristine because we don't get replacements for free or even a download if something happens to the disc, then I will. I will NOT pay for something over and over again... I do look after my discs, but occasionally there will always eb a mechanical breakdown or something so the disc gets ruined, this way I just use the backup disc instead of the original, then if something happens I can make another copy... it also has the benefit of not having to sit through advertisements or menu screens etc, can get straight to watching the movie instead of having to wait 10 mins +.

 

Anyway, sorry to keep this going, but there are some fucked up laws that really need changing to stay current. I understand that people need to get paid, and I agree, but you don't need to keep getting paid for the same product that I bought already... I think it should be a licence for a movie, rather than a disc... so if you paid for a disc/download for example you also get added to a database with a licence for said movie, and you can download it again how ever many times you like and view it on ANY media player you like with no DRM crap. Yes there will be mis-use of it and people will pass those on to friends/relatives etc... but at least when they buy a movie (for a fair price I might add) they won't feel like they got it in the arse when they can't actually play that movie on their phone etc without paying for it again, or commiting a crime by making copies of it for their devices etc....   end rant!

[TidaLWaveZ]

16 hours ago, paddy-stone said:

Haven't read all this thread, but just want to clarify something. Mentioning kodi and this court case is essentially wrong, the title should be changed. The fact that these boxes that were sold had been modified to link to TV/Movie streams is more important... kodi had nothing to do with it really... it's like saying that GMC trucks were in a court battle because people used their cars/trucks for robbing banks. OK not a great analogy, but my point is you can't mention x company in the same sentence as court case/fight as it's mis-leading as kodi has nothing to do with it really.

I have no judgement here one way or the other... I use kodi daily, but don't use it to stream "illegal" content. Anyone that uses these type of boxes or just a regular PC or whatever and doesn't use a VPN is asking for trouble if they live in a country that logs ISP traffic. That has nothing to do with this I know, as this case is about "selling" of the boxes rather than catching people that use them, but just wanted to make a point that streaming/downloading "illegal" content and not paying £25-35 a year for a VPN is just plain stupid IMO.

 

Good luck convincing the media, any article covering this incident will no doubt demonize Kodi.  I haven't found one yet that doesn't.

 

This is how everything happens now days, online news authors don't know what the hell they're talking about and don't do any research.  They publish the articles and they spread like wildfire by people who know nothing but what the article said.  Next thing you know your country is being run by one of two lying neanderthals. 

[paddy-stone]

Yeah, I know it's not likely to happen (at least in my lifetime), because of the greed of media moguls etc... but what they don't seem to understand is that, if they drop the price of movies/tv etc to something that the whole world could afford, then they also have the whole world as a potential buyer. So say they drop the price of buying a licence for example to $5, that opens up the market to maybe 80% of the world... let's face it unless the price dropped to 10c or soemthing some parts of the world would still not be able to afford it or they have bigger issues like hunger etc than buying a movie. Anyway, so at $5 maybe 80% of the world could buy that licence theoretically (haven't actually got the data so is all theory), so out of those 80% if the movie is great, maybe 40% would buy it at $5... that is approx $14 Billion?, and say they have different levels of HD for those licences, so $5 is for 1080p theatrical edition. Then they have $7 for extended blu-ray edition quality ($10 for actual blu-ray instead of download), and $12 for 4k version ($15 for actual UHD bluray) or top version, assuming they go further to 8K etc.

Anyway, that is a waaay better model for income I think, and it keeps the consumers happy, knowing that if they accidentally break soemthing or need to download a copy again for a different device, they can with no problems... they don't feel ripped off.

It's not 100% thought out obviously, but I see the above as being a better income model for movie companies than cinema takings which they don't get much of anyway, and they still have other merchandicing options anyway.