
Kodi: Open source TV app inspires full-blown copyright panic in the UK - Errorcod3
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/05/kodi-fully-loaded-boxes-are-they-legal/
======
hunta2097
These stories are incredibly incendiary, fueled by Murdoch's News UK Group.
Whilst I think you would be an idiot to run unknown software on your home
network (even if it means you get free TV) there have been no prosecutions
against individual users yet.

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.

~~~
kobeya
"Run unknown software"? Kodi is open source and community written.

~~~
ekimekim
I think they were referring to the 3rd party add-ons that provide unlicenced
sources. Granted, those add-ons are likely open-source too, so it's a matter
of doing your homework or having a source or curator that you trust.

------
retrac98
Give consumers a legal service that's better than the illegal alternative.

~~~
jasonkostempski
They can't. They've already proven they can't do good UX even under a paid
service so the only thing left to compete on is price and reliability and then
they're competing against free and voluntarily hosted distributed redundancy.
There's no value that can be added to that (other than removing the risk of
criminal punishment).

~~~
maccard
Sure they can. They can provide an ad-free (well let's say ad-lite), HD, low
latency stream for an affordable price, without awful hidden charges or long
contracts.

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.

------
phkahler
>> Pubs are a favoured target of FACT. Subscriptions allowing them to screen
live sports are expensive, making Kodi boxes attractive.

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.

~~~
juliangoldsmith
Just using an antenna, you would only be able to get a few games, mostly from
local teams. People want to see games from all over, which local TV stations
don't generally offer.

~~~
phkahler
Sure, but I've seen plenty of businesses that have cable and just show the
local news. I can understand a big place wanting to have a variety of sports
content, but even those that don't tend to have cable.

------
kodithrow
I watch pirated TV using Kodi on my Amazon Fire TV in the USA.

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.

~~~
maccard
Curious why you pay for it? If you're openly admitting to pirating it, why not
just pirate it for free? it's not like the licence owners are getting any of
your $13/month.

~~~
kodithrow
I'm paying for better quality streams, not because I think the license holders
get a cut of the profits.

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.

~~~
maccard
Fair enough. I don't agree but I understand your view. Thanks for responding.

------
tracker1
I've been using Kodi/XBMC for years, and can't believe anyone actually uses
the streaming services... when I'd tried it the quality all really sucked.

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.

~~~
say_no_to_tde
Android TV supports directtv now?

~~~
tracker1
Maybe not... _sigh_ , saw a support thread where it was mentioned that the
device should have been added, grr. Had been debating on getting a sling or
dtv account.

------
joaodlf
I moved to the UK a few years ago, I'm still really surprised with the state
of TV here. Between this and things like "TV licence" \- It's just an
embarrassment really.

~~~
retrac98
Yes, TV here is shit, but the TV licence is completely optional if you're not
the applicable content, you can opt-out online:
[http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
one/topics/te...](http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-
one/topics/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence)

~~~
madaxe_again
Not that that does anything other than tell them you exist.

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.

~~~
teh_klev
I haven't had a license since 2006 when I binned my Sky box. I don't watch any
live telly and when the new rules about needing a license for BBC iPlayer came
into force I just stopped using it (I only ever watched top gear and a bit of
Masterchef, so no great loss).

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.

~~~
madaxe_again
I'd assumed it was capita, who seem to run the entire uk at this point - the
state exists for their profit.

------
JamesBaxter
The state of legal TV and film content in the UK is abysmal.

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?

[0][https://www.justwatch.com/uk/tv-series/the-
americans](https://www.justwatch.com/uk/tv-series/the-americans)

~~~
kybernetikos
> I'll be seeding a file to others who might have legal alternatives

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.

~~~
phkahler
The seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the
copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.

~~~
moopling
the kodi addons I've seen tend to connect to websites which host the content
and display ads. Given that these don't involve seeding does that mean that
the viewers aren't violating copyright, only the hosts?

~~~
bumblebeard
That's my understanding of how the law works in the US. In the UK though it
sounds like you're breaking the law if you watch the stream as well.

~~~
hunta2097
That's how things _used_ to be in the UK.

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.

------
LordKano
The future of these pirate TV devices is so uncertain that I don't understand
why people are willing to pay so much for them.

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.

~~~
talldan
They're around £40 on Amazon (one-off cost), so not very expensive.

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.

~~~
tracker1
Maybe I just don't have the right connections, or know the right plugins...
but when I've looked, the quality has been abysmal, consistency horrible, and
just not worth the hassle... maybe just me.

------
joshbaptiste
I knew these pirate IPTV streams were in trouble when I noticed people
springing up everywhere wanting to buy Amazon TV sticks to have it "hacked" to
include Kodi streaming plugins. There's actually a market for pre-loaded
Amazon TV sticks with Kodi.

