Kodi: Open source TV app inspires full-blown copyright panic in the UK
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
Sky's sport and movie subscriber base are obviously taking a hit from people moving to pirated content. That is why you are seeing hyperbolic stories about 10 years in prison for watching football on a Kodi box.
I would not be surprised to find that the same media groups [successfully] lobbied for the 2017 Digital Economy Act amendments.
What about the plethora of "pre-loaded" scripts that are installed in order to gain access to illegal content?
I'm not talking about Kodi. Kodi is awesome.
Kodi is very well known and respected, it's the new/rebranded version of XBMC (XBox Media Center) - it's been around for quite some time
I've read about (and seen) Rpis sold as "attach this thing to your TV to watch football". So I wonder if people buy it for that or because they respect XMBC
It's been a long time since I tried the illegal streaming websites, but when I did, they were awful experiences; low quality streams with heavy buffering, multiple timeouts, full screen pop up ads. Some of them required a captcha before trying each stream, and if it didn't work, tough luck.
Compared to Netflix, where (assuming they have the content) you get a HD stream, no interruptions, minimal ads, at a reasonable price point.
Is this the situation in the US too? I wonder why pubs have shitty cableTV with downgraded picture when they could just get an antenna and have awesome HD. Is it not OK to publicly show that which is broadcast? That seems absurd.
Ex. In DC, I'll get the NFL's Redskins on broadcast, plus maybe the Dallas Cowboys and 1-2 others of national interest. If I want to watch the Buffalo Bills every weekend (even when they aren't playing Dallas), I need cable.
There are some free Kodi add-ons for on-demand TV (i.e., free Netflix clones), but I use Kodi as a replacement for live sports. For $13/month, I get hundreds of live channels.
AMA.
If there was a similar legal IPTV service that got the license holders paid, I would choose that (even at a higher price point). My current alternative is Comcast which I have had nightmarish experiences with.
It looks like this is an industry that is finally maturing (with Sling TV and others) so it might be different next year.
Recently got an NVidia Shield TV, which I've been using kodi for my local/network media, and it's been okay (may retire/reuse my htpc). What I've enjoyed about the shield is that it supports netflix, amazon video, directtv now, sling and pretty much every legal streaming service out there. Of course, once you add a few of them up, you aren't saving much over cable.
What does irk me though is all the "channels" with "free" apps that you have to verify your cable sub for... I mean, aren't they still going to show the ads anyway? wtf does it really matter... Not to mention the craptastic experience that was the latest superbowl. If the companies make online streaming actually better, and/or not charge an arm and a leg, it will get more legit users.
The international licensing issues are way worse though... there are teams of employees and developers and netflix just to handle/track international licensing issues, windows, dates, etc.
The top and mid tier cable channels make much of their money off of carriage fees with the cable companies. If they offered their content free over the internet, the cable companies could just stop paying it and offer all of the customers a Roku box, a custom app for the channels they wanted to carry and let customers stream the other content for free.
I'm working on renovating a property currently, have been for a year and a bit. It's uninhabited. There's no TV, no internet connection; just drills and saws. There isn't even running water.
I notified them that the property was unoccupied in response to their first letter, 18 months ago.
They said that they didn't believe me, and an enforcement officer would be over. One came while I was away and left a "I'll be back with bailiffs" note, and about six months ago, I had them show up on my doorstep with police in tow. The cops seemed highly bemused to have been dragged to a property which didn't even have windows at the time, never mind a bloody television. They left, he said not a problem, no more letters.
Since then I've collected about 15 more "we know you have a television!" letters from the doorstep there, and yet another note from a different visiting enforcement officer.
Based on this and a previous similar experience a decade ago, I can't help but conclude that they spend every penny they collect on arse-about-tit enforcement.
Whole system is daft.
So anyway, I kept getting letters from TV licensing. I called them up and told them to remove me from their database which they did. One year later the letters were back (except addressed to "The Occupier"). I get a letter every month with varying degrees of threatening outcomes if I don't contact TVL again. It pisses me off that a private company (it's managed by Capita) is allowed to send harassing letters like this despite being told not to.
I did once get a TVL "enforcement officer" come knock on my door. After he identified himself I politely told him that I didn't need to let him in (they have no powers) and that I wouldn't be confirming or denying if I have any TV equipment (you don't need to). At that point he just walked away. That was about three years ago so I'm no doubt due for another visit.
The last time I lived in the UK without a TV, it was in a fancy part of London.
We replied to the first letter, and never again heard anything from TV Licensing.
I think it's really important that we consider that just because there's no legal way for me to watch say "The Americans" season 5 legally in the UK[0], I'm not entitled to pirate it. That is the content distributors mistake.
Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives.
I've had to adjust how important watching stuff can be to me. Is it really that important that I get to watch some TV? Worth breaking the law for?
Eh. I'm willing to support creators to a certain extent, but if they don't want my money they're welcome to not have it.
> Saying that me downloading it doesn't hurt them doesn't track either because I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives.
You can seed to exactly 1.0 so that your presence makes no difference one way or another if this is what bothers you.
> I've had to adjust how important watching stuff can be to me. Is it really that important that I get to watch some TV? Worth breaking the law for?
Everyone has their lines in the sand. The law counts for something, particularly when passed democratically, but it's not everything, particularly when imposed via backroom international treaties.
It doesn't seem fair to me to make the seeder responsible for the illegal usage of the leacher. If it's legal for some people to connect to a torrent, then any crime committed by someone who connects and downloads something they are not allowed to download should be on them, not on the seeder. The alternative is to insist that the seeder is responsible for checking that each of their peers have the rights to the content, which is impractical.
UK copyright law was aimed at counterfeiters (seedy Joe who sells knock-off T-Shirts, CDs and tapes down the local pub).
Now with the Digital Economy amendments, we have an extremely vague mention of "violating copyright".
Are you violating copyright when consuming, or just when distributing? The act does not say.
I expect there will be a few test cases to work this out but in the meantime, the press is having a field-day by promoting the worst case scenario for even minor infractions.
I think that if media hasn't been released legally for a significant amount of time, it should be allowed to be shared. But a fews months or years? If you made that the law, it would really warp the negotiating powers of distributors and content creators.
I don't having to wait a modest amount of to watch stuff is a good excuse for piracy. Especially in the age of netflix. How many dozens of great shows are there that you can watch instead?
I don't follow. I feel quite strongly that those people are in the wrong, not the seeder.
I recently saw something called an ISTV that was selling for around $400. I can't imagine investing that kind of money in a product that can be shutdown in under a year.
I looked up ISTV - it appears to be a completely ordinary loaded Kodi box with a $300 markup.
I avoid piracy, and I'm personally spending way more than that on a monthly basis for multiple legal services that provide less content.
I have acquaintances who have the Kodi box, and they work impressively well, so I can see why they're very compelling.