Google Adds 'Kodi' to Autocomplete Piracy Filter
torrentfreak.com
torrentfreak.com
>While Kodi is a legal set-top box for streaming, it supports a myriad of third-party add-ons that provide access to pirated media.
Kodi is not a "set-top box". Kodi is software. A set-top box might be pre-loaded with Kodi, but it is not Kodi, anymore than a phone is an "Android". As far as I'm aware, the Kodi team doesn't even sell or officially endorse any pre-loaded hardware set-top box.
This sort of mangling is disappointing from a tech-focused news outlet like The Verge. It also reinforces the implicit association between Kodi and piracy, which is the very thing that caused Google to remove Kodi from search results in the first place.
This sort of mangling is exactly how exaggerated misrepresented news gets spread. Google didn't remove Kodi from their search results. You can type Kodi and it's the first thing that pops up.
You can type home theater software and get Kodi in the search results, or open source media player and get Kodi.
All they did is remove Kodi from being autocompleted. It still even comes up for autosuggestion.
Google is allowed to curate thisr autocomplete to remove links to 6degree piracy topics, and even promote a candidate by removing negative results like they did for Clinton - and I’m allowed to consider them actually-evil for doing so.
What individual users can do in the mean time is using independent, less corporate services: DuckDuckGo comes to mind.
It is however hard to ignore that Google really has a monopoly on good search (well, decliningly so for me). Maybe we should also start to use Bing to fuel competition.
The irony is that Google has made far more money off of "piracy" than Kodi.
The sad thing is that a certain select set of companies gets special privileges while open source endeavors like Kodi get shafted.
If Kodi had a lot of private consumer data to trade for legal immunities it would be a different story.
They issued a correction:
Correction March 30th, 2018, 1:20AM ET: Article updated to be clear that Kodi is software sometimes loaded onto set-top-boxes, not a set-top box.
Also this is the original source article that The Verge have re-heated:
https://torrentfreak.com/google-adds-kodi-to-autocomplete-pi...
I have no idea what they can do to combat this. I don't see how they can distance themselves from this any more than they have.
Does anyone know why the consumer electronics industry is ignoring Kodi?
I really don't think the audience for Kodi is that big. It requires you to have DRM-less, local copies of any TV or movie you want to watch, and how many people - legally - have that? Not many. I know because I'm one of those people, and use Plex, despite its faults.
Also, last I used Kodi it was one (very big) codebase. Plex is split out into server components and client apps, which is essential for Smart TV usage. You're never going to get a full instance of Kodi running on a Roku box, you'll need some kind of client that connects to a remote server holding all your videos. There's nothing stopping the Kodi team from making that Roku app, incidentally.
This is partially true. While all the "questionable" boxes come with pre-installed plugins connect to servers that restream copyrighted content (including live content), there are also plugins that connect to legit content streamers as well.
To boot, Plex began as a fork of XBMC (Kodi's name at the time). Which, given Kodi's GPLv2 license, probably puts Plex out of compliance.
https://forums.plex.tv/discussion/141186/possible-gpl-violat...
https://forums.plex.tv/discussion/141186/possible-gpl-violat...
Ah, XBMC... I still have an original Xbox that I modded to specifically run XBMC collecting dust in my spare room. It definitely has come a long way.
And though it was big and heavy, it had an integrated PSU.
This was before raspberry pi was a thing, mind you. The alternatives were expensive (~€200) hard disk enclosures that couldn't do a fourth of this. I would have kept on using if it wasn't for its inability to cope with HD formats, and wouldn't be surprised to learn that it helped to promote the console quite a bit.
It was noisy as hell (from the fan) too.
The fact that know one even remember it besides me seems to point out why not a lot of others have followed.
Unfortunately most companies in the sector, from hardware manufacturers to integrators, have equivalent, if not worse open-source policies. They are willing to take the hard work of others where it will accelerate development, but view sharing back as a loss of control and competitive advantage.
This is in part due to pressure from operators and content providers, who are very fearful of losing control over distribution and tend to view anything open with deep suspicion.
I’ve never understood this mentality (disclaimer: I’ve worked on set top box software). The competitive concern would only be valid if the company’s closed source software was any good. Every closed source set top box software I’ve ever seen was beyond awful, at least compared to open source alternatives. Who on earth would gain any competitive advantage from even looking at the code, let alone using it in a competing product?
They don't have a business model and product that is designed to spy on their customers, which makes them a turd in the toilet bowl.
Require addons and kodi itself not to hardcode the Kodi name/brand (even in logos/addons titles, etc.), if an unauthorized addon is installed kodi replaces all the kodi brand with a generic name, the harder to google the better, something like "Media Player" sounds generic enough.
But I'm sure these box sellers would just "create" custom skins/addons and put the kodi brand there just to spite the developers.
https://kodi.tv/article/xbmc-getting-new-name-introducing-ko...
[1] I don't buy that they needed to change the name because "XBMC" didn't make sense anymore. "Kodi" is just as nonsensical as "XBMC", if not more so.
They were only referring to ability to sue over misuse (say I make a KodiBox and sell it). Google omitting from auto-complete isn't relevant.
I think main reason wasn't that however, but was to prevent legal activity from Microsoft. (I suspect there were undisclosed related conversations)
I disagree. They wanted legal control of their name, yet now they have it and Google considers it a piracy search term. Microsoft speculation aside, they didn't gain anything because pirate-box makers don't care about legal action to begin with.
I don't think Kodi's reputation should suffer any more than Apple's does, but at the same time, I know that it will.
I think Kodi could partially mitigate this issue by selling clean kodi boxes. I still don't know where I can buy one.
It's their right to do so, but it's stupid and defies logic.
“Organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.”
Since the beginning, our goal has been to develop services that significantly improve the lives of as many people as possible.
Not just for some. For everyone.
To decrement something would appear to be contrary to making it universally accessible.
You can't ban software makers for the illegal use of their software by users when your own users and services are the same...
Why don't they remove "full episode" from YouTube's autocomplete? (We all know the answer to that one.)
The sad thing is that yes - they can, and yes - they do. And there's little we can do to stop them from doing that, apart from raising concerns and stopping using their service.
Is it that copyright violation is such a "heinous" crime that special rules apply?
Aside: Neither of these seems like useful exercises for Google.
I'm not suggesting Google interfere with either. I'm suggesting copyright forces have an unreasonable amount of clout, much of it invisible. More even than a mass movement against school massacres.
Many sites changed their policies regarding guns in anticipation of the changes to Section 230.
They just haven't been clever enough to organize their own customers, or some other mass front, politically the way the gun industry has.
Any software developer that is looking for leadership from the software industry is going to be very disappointed. Often, the industry doesn't really have the best instance of developers in mind.
In recent decades even the most frivolous copyright claims supersedes the 1st amendment in the eyes of both the courts and corporations. I imagine if they were invented today, the xerox, tape-recorder or printing-press would have a very hard time.
But you are right, consumers and technologist have near zero clout.
Whether one agrees or not, Dick's Sporting Goods is within their rights to remove partial/all (can't remember what they did exactly, honestly) gun sales.
So they're not really all that different. Kodi isn't considered culpable for people using it in a bad way here, just Google is removing it from autocomplete in a precautionary manner. Likewise, guns and Dick's.
The question was why gun manufacturers aren't legally accountable for crimes committed with their products while software developers are.
The (paraphrased) answer provided is "They aren't; Google removing Kodi from autocomplete is similar to sporting goods stores removing guns from sale".
In the US, tort law defines manufacturer liability and there is no negligence or design defect.
There are manufacturers who solely make piracy boxes running Kodi who are frequently charged (https://www.engadget.com/2017/09/25/kodi-box-guilty-reversal...). And if gun manufacturers marketed a device with a primary purpose of murder they would likely be charged.
In business law class, we had a case about a switchblade manufacturer adding features only useful for stabbing people. But I can’t find a real reference on Google.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/04/google-demotes-chr...
I am sure this is a total coincidence that the ability of Chrome to cast local files was showed off literally yesterday, and they seek and destroy the competitor that makes Chromecasting look like a cavemans solution the following.
Example; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kodi_(software)
All links there =) Anytime official site changes, this pages updated.
Wikipedia is your Search Engine, when Google fails.
Edit: also note that it's just the autocomplete, not the actual search results
Prior to that, it was known as XBMC ("XBox Media Center"). Under that title it's been around since 2003.
Google can do whatever they want to please their masters within the industry on the piracy front. I moved to DuckDuckGo years ago. If I want to check Google results I get them through the Startpage bang.
Google & Facebook belong in the same category of no-go, invasive privacy offenders. Which is piracy in my book. Hopefully their next preventative measure in that regard is to remove google.com.
Unfortunately the existence of an autocomplete filtering system does lead to increased pressure to use it for more than just racism and porn.