Sale of Kodi ‘fully-loaded’ streaming boxes faces legal test in UK | Hacker News Reader

Sale of Kodi ‘fully-loaded’ streaming boxes faces legal test in UK

bbc.co.uk

59 pointsactionjack35 comments

For some context, here's a blog post from the Kodi devs about "Fully Loaded" boxes from earlier this year: https://kodi.tv/the-piracy-box-sellers-and-youtube-promoters...

What I don't understand is who runs the actual streams? They require loads of bandwidth and are easy for law enforcement to target. They seem to be just standard HLS endpoints.

The Kiss network store their videos on googlevideo.com.

Other common places to store these things are on vidlocker.

I believe the business model is that the video service provides no search, making it hard for rights holders to be proactive, while 3rd party uploade and curate videos under the guise of "since it was on this other network we believed that license was taken care of (just like how YouTube tend to be responsible for licensing and not you, when you link to YouTube)

From what I read on a forum, the Kiss network rotates their videos across a large number of Google accounts. It's quite amazing how they manage that kind of infrastructure. What's more impressive is that when Google catches whiff of them, which they have done multiple times now, they're usually back up in a few days.

If any of the Kiss devs are reading this, you should commercialize your stack, and aim it at people who want high availability personal video storage.

plex just announced a cloud based version that runs off video stored on amazon drive.

Back when I used to host pirated videos on Google, I used Picasa. I had a server with a GUI installed that I would download stuff onto, then drag into Picasa and upload it. After that I'd just use a bunch of proxy servers to request the stream from Google, and set up a redirector to send my users to the proper endpoints. Not that hard, just very labor intensive. AFAIK there are no automated bots / scripts that do this, just lots of people that drag&drop videos via VNC.

>Middlesbrough trader Brian Thompson is accused of selling equipment that "facilitated the circumvention" of copyright protection measures.

If this is all they are accusing them of, I don't see how they have a leg to stand on. As far as I can tell they just download content that is freely available. The circumvention of copyright protection measures happened before that.

He is the one making the profit though, I mean that is why he is being targeted for prosecution, not that it is a reason to target him.

However his facebook ads were openly promoting the fact that you could access paid for programming for free, this was his pain selling point, and I think that is much more likely the reason he was targeted.

Correct. The UK legislation which defines what kind of infringement (or enablement thereof) constitutes a criminal offence [0] uses the language "In the course of a business ... otherwise than in the course of a business to such an extent as to affect prejudicially the owner of the copyright."

The second is a very high barrier.

[0] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-prop...

Mixed feelings. Kodi itself is a completely legal bit of software and a great one at that but:

The videos sections of Kodi rely on you feeding it files. Yes there is free media and there's a PVR plugin but, they're not the main pull. The unspoken truth is people are downloading and ripping and feeding it into the app. You can see that reflected in the regexes that parse filenames.

The legal status of plugins like BBC iPlayer and YouTube are strongly debatable too; they're not official plugins and both services have snotty TOSes.

DVD/BR ripping is illegal in many countries (including the UK).

So one could argue Kodi has only ever really served pirates.

Kodi could also be better at protecting their trademark. Ebay is still FULL of people selling devices that sell Kodi as some sort of dark portal to an unlimited cinema. They have said they're starting to work on that but without much success in 6 months.

I think Kodi has to tread very carefully now. They're a couple of cases away from their name being dragged through the mud. Ironically, things that used Kodi's code (Plex, Boxee) have done much better at getting official support from content providers. They need that now more than ever.

What is the difference between someone loading it for you or for example a school that teaches you skills to do it on your own?

The skills are general and could be applied to other tasks, the device is very specifically being sold for an illegal task (even if the seller is being shady about telling the buyer the legal implications).

Also Kodi itself is not illegal, so someone teaching you to install Kodi and its plugins generally is different to someone teaching how to install (or doing for you) Kodi and anti-anti-piracy measures.

Educating someone to do it is more abstract and removed, just like selling these devices compared direct filesharing. Now that they routinely persecute filesharing, the ratchet moves forward to go after these devices. After they're well criminalized, they'll work on criminalizing spreading knowledge next.

I recently looked into buying one of these at a smaller (little bit shady) computer shop. The guy offered me an IPTV subscription package for $15 that contained tons of premium channels (HBO, NBA TV, etc) which in Canada would cost ~$60. The quality was very nice HD. The weird part was that it used some 3rd party 'emulator' app to run with a clipart icon. I wasn't sure if this was legal. Does anyone know more about this type of TV streaming?

Details are a bit scarce, but this seems to be about distributing add-ins that stream pirated content from somewhere, presumably "popcorntime" or similar?

No, but close. Seems to be about the sale of boxes that comes preloaded with addons that can stream and play copyrighted material.

Every media box ever has been able to play copyrighted material.

You play copyrighted material everytime you play a dvd, stream Netflix or listen to the radio.

Indeed, all media is copyrighted by default in the United States, and this includes any media you legally own or are legitimately licensed.

That applies to all Berne Convention countries I think. Actually it is a relatively recent idea in the US.

Well, I do think lawmakers see a difference in a device which COULD play copyrighted material versus a device that is specifically meant to play copyrighted material.

I don't understand what you mean. A Dvd player is specifically build to play copyrighted material.

A computer can, but is not specifically build to play copyrighted content.

Any box that has browser and can access Google can do that

I'd say he doesn't stand a chance.

UK law has already determined thepiratebay is an illegal site equivalent to selling pirated dvds, and forced isps to block it. judges by and large can barely even turn a computer on let alone comprehend search isn't the same as hosting.

This absolutely isnt because they are mostly corrupt and taken large payments from big media.

> search isn't the same as hosting.

It is very easy to excuse behaviour on the basis of the implementation details. The intent of the people involved should matter, and the Pirate Bay was very obviously intended to enable piracy.

Only if you are willing to frame "providing a directory of people willing to share 1s and 0s with each other" as equivalent to holding someone up at gun/sword point on the high seas.

Many of my peers have come to the conclusion making such an equivalence is the result of corruption and vested interests in causing damage to society at large.

I think its just the result of total incompetence and sheep like behaviour.

Either way its definitely caused now irreparable damage to what was once considered the worlds best legal system.

And if you don't believe, just ask yourself when the UK legal system last made a decision that people at large considered demonstrated how good a system it is (rather than the exact opposite)

> Only if you are willing to frame "providing a directory of people willing to share 1s and 0s with each other" as equivalent to holding someone up at gun/sword point on the high seas.

You're misinterpreting the word piracy. Nobody said this.

define:piracy ˈpʌɪrəsi noun 1. the practice of attacking and robbing ships at sea. 2. the unauthorized use or reproduction of another's work.

_____

The UK courts have extended that already to :

3. Providing an index dedicated to people reproducing another's work without authorisation.

As per all the great bookmarks here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_websites_blocked_in_th...

Dissembling won't get you far in court.

Great grandparent post did not mean the first meaning.

As a geek I spend every waking moment believeing that a stream of 1s and 0s can have real world significance. Those bits have real meaning that should be respected. You cannot just ignore basic ethics and law on the basis of how the information happens to be transferred from one brain to another. Surely we should want everyone to understand this in order to get some protections from government spying.

A bit OT, however, I think it's worth pointing out:

->order to get some protections from government spying.

I suspect the governments who actively make their own citizens vulnerable to spying by other governments probably won't be around that much longer. The kind of incompetence and arrogance that comes with making your citizenship vulnerable to foreign influence to protect the status quo in the name of "national security" has never ever ended well for the status quo.

Poor title - it's the sale of fully loaded boxes that is being challenged, not normal Kodi boxes.

Looks like the mods have fixed it. The BBC article title is also OK. What was the original title of this post?

The BBC like to change the page title after the initial posting of the article, especially if the story is still developing.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com