Kodi 18 "Leia" Enters Alpha With Thousands Of Changes

[polarathene]

And I think that's a major problem. You don't apparently and that's very weird to me. Let's face the facts here, all multimedia content is stolen, not a single person that views or listens to it is the legal owner of that content. It does -not- matter where or what you watch it on.

How is it stolen? The legal owner of the content is usually an entity, sometimes it can be an individual. You get issued a license, for streaming services and media that's a temporal license. DRM and all that exists to only attempt to re-enforce that license to avoid piracy(actual theft). When it was more common to watch your media via physical formats like VHS, CD, DVD, etc, you still did not own the content. You owned the physical storage it was on, you owned a license, but never the actual content itself. Legally you weren't allowed to distribute copies or even allow others to view/borrow it(though I doubt many bother to adhere to that).

Not all content is treated like described above obviously, but it's pretty common with movies and tv shows or music for example.

BS. Who decides what is legal? It isn't Kodi. It isn't the RIAA or MPAA. Is it you that decides?


The bottom line fact is that anyone anywhere has access to everything for free in mere seconds. It's a fact, get used to it.

Who decides it is legal? The law and the licenses that are assigned to the content, if you violate them, you violate the contractual law(doesn't require you to sign it afaik, although with legal streaming services you probably agreed to terms of use that you didn't read etc, other media may inform you in it's packaging or brief clip before the content begins, etc). That's how it becomes illegal.

When people take Nintendo's IP like pokemon and distribute access to a fan made game or release the app on Apple's appstore(which has gotten past review somehow in the past), then Nintendo has to act upon that legally, else risk consequences. As an individual, you don't matter so much, the content owner is going to go after distributors(websites, torrent producers, to some extent prolific seeders of illegal content, etc). Individuals usually don't have much value to pursue if they're the only consumer and not furthering the problem. I think they've been made an example of in the past to try incite some fear, but other than that it's not common as it's not worth all the time/effort with paperwork and court proceedings etc, especially since the individual to be prosecuted by law is likely doing these activities because they're unable to afford obtaining content legally(the why part is so relevant here), thus the individual has nothing to offer financially, only the potential for impact on others like them.

Yes content can be accessed quite easily these days for free, that doesn't make it legal. If I walk into a store or even just walk outside it or through a market where there are tables with products on display for purchase. If I grab one of these and run off with it, it's free right? Didn't cost me anything. Is it legal? If someone else does it, and then hands the product to me for free because they took so much they want to share it around to others who need it. Still free, I may not be aware of where it came from or it's legality, but it's no more legal(especially if I'm aware the provider isn't legally permitted to distribute the product freely like that).

No it's just a media center designed for no content at all! Duh, obviously a media center designed to ignore all of the content in the world! I should'a thunk it....

When you install your OS, do you expect it to provide you with a way to interact with data you use? Should it have all the games, pictures, videos, PDFs etc that you want, or should it just provide a way for you to interact with them(programs) and ways to make that content available from sources(your external media, or downloading it, etc)? Does a text editor provide you with a bunch of text documents for you to consume or does it have all it's features and add-ons to work with the content you provide it?

You completely misunderstand what Kodi is as others have stated. There are addons yes, Kodi makes that possible so that people can develop addons that will pull in content elsewhere regardless of how legal it is. Kodi avoids being involved with that by keeping it out what it distributes, if someone wants to create/add third party addon to do something illegal, that is their choice, Kodi will enable it but not support or endorse it. I'm sure you can think of illegal content that is clearly illegal and many would not want to possess or have provided to them by default.

A content service such as Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix provide,will give you access to content on a licensed basis, usually paid. A content service is not what Kodi is. You don't expect your toaster to perform the role of other appliances in the kitchen do you? Would you edit/make content with a media player? Does your file browser provide the filesystem and your data or is it more of an interface to manage your data with the file system? Kodi would be more like that file browser.

[starshipeleven]

I'm not going to argue the future, but I will argue the past.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/06/17/debian_chromium_hubbub/

https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugr...cgi?bug=786909

A function left enabled is a far cry from sending all your hard drive over to google.

[starshipeleven]

BS. Who decides what is legal?

Your government's laws?

[starshipeleven]

No it's just a media center designed for no content at all! Duh, obviously a media center designed to ignore all of the content in the world! I should'a thunk it....

Plugins to add any content are pretty easy to write. Even those serving pirated shit that can't be legally distributed/endorsed by the main Kodi project.

It's designed to allow easy content addition by content providers, and of course it has local media playback from your own media server, or even local folders.

[duby229]

Your government's laws?

And unenforceable BS is unenforceable BS.

[duby229]

How is it stolen? The legal owner of the content is usually an entity, sometimes it can be an individual. You get issued a license, for streaming services and media that's a temporal license. DRM and all that exists to only attempt to re-enforce that license to avoid piracy(actual theft). When it was more common to watch your media via physical formats like VHS, CD, DVD, etc, you still did not own the content. You owned the physical storage it was on, you owned a license, but never the actual content itself. Legally you weren't allowed to distribute copies or even allow others to view/borrow it(though I doubt many bother to adhere to that).

Not all content is treated like described above obviously, but it's pretty common with movies and tv shows or music for example.



Who decides it is legal? The law and the licenses that are assigned to the content, if you violate them, you violate the contractual law(doesn't require you to sign it afaik, although with legal streaming services you probably agreed to terms of use that you didn't read etc, other media may inform you in it's packaging or brief clip before the content begins, etc). That's how it becomes illegal.

When people take Nintendo's IP like pokemon and distribute access to a fan made game or release the app on Apple's appstore(which has gotten past review somehow in the past), then Nintendo has to act upon that legally, else risk consequences. As an individual, you don't matter so much, the content owner is going to go after distributors(websites, torrent producers, to some extent prolific seeders of illegal content, etc). Individuals usually don't have much value to pursue if they're the only consumer and not furthering the problem. I think they've been made an example of in the past to try incite some fear, but other than that it's not common as it's not worth all the time/effort with paperwork and court proceedings etc, especially since the individual to be prosecuted by law is likely doing these activities because they're unable to afford obtaining content legally(the why part is so relevant here), thus the individual has nothing to offer financially, only the potential for impact on others like them.

Yes content can be accessed quite easily these days for free, that doesn't make it legal. If I walk into a store or even just walk outside it or through a market where there are tables with products on display for purchase. If I grab one of these and run off with it, it's free right? Didn't cost me anything. Is it legal? If someone else does it, and then hands the product to me for free because they took so much they want to share it around to others who need it. Still free, I may not be aware of where it came from or it's legality, but it's no more legal(especially if I'm aware the provider isn't legally permitted to distribute the product freely like that).



When you install your OS, do you expect it to provide you with a way to interact with data you use? Should it have all the games, pictures, videos, PDFs etc that you want, or should it just provide a way for you to interact with them(programs) and ways to make that content available from sources(your external media, or downloading it, etc)? Does a text editor provide you with a bunch of text documents for you to consume or does it have all it's features and add-ons to work with the content you provide it?

You completely misunderstand what Kodi is as others have stated. There are addons yes, Kodi makes that possible so that people can develop addons that will pull in content elsewhere regardless of how legal it is. Kodi avoids being involved with that by keeping it out what it distributes, if someone wants to create/add third party addon to do something illegal, that is their choice, Kodi will enable it but not support or endorse it. I'm sure you can think of illegal content that is clearly illegal and many would not want to possess or have provided to them by default.

A content service such as Google, Apple, Amazon, Netflix provide,will give you access to content on a licensed basis, usually paid. A content service is not what Kodi is. You don't expect your toaster to perform the role of other appliances in the kitchen do you? Would you edit/make content with a media player? Does your file browser provide the filesystem and your data or is it more of an interface to manage your data with the file system? Kodi would be more like that file browser.

Which is a view that no longer works. In fact your view hasn't been true since at least 2004, and it was building up to that since dial up was invented.... The fact is that shit happened and people don't rent movies anymore. They don't do it from rental stores or retail stores. What they do is get online and google search for a stream. Just because -you- grew up in a time bofore that was true doesn't mean everybody did. You really need to stop looking at your own opinion and start looking at what is actually happening in this world.

Unenforceable BS is just that. If watching a movie is illegal then it's plainly obvious that DRM itself is illegal.

[dcrdev]

Which is a view that no longer works. In fact your view hasn't been true since at least 2004, and it was building up to that since dial up was invented.... The fact is that shit happened and people don't rent movies anymore. They don't do it from rental stores or retail stores. What they do is get online and google search for a stream. Just because -you- grew up in a time bofore that was true doesn't mean everybody did. You really need to stop looking at your own opinion and start looking at what is actually happening in this world.

Unenforceable BS is just that. If watching a movie is illegal then it's plainly obvious that DRM itself is illegal.

It's fine to disagree with a particular law - many people do, but what you're saying is just plain arrogant.

What 'most' *cough* people do or don't do doesn't somehow legitimise something. If enough people commit arson, assault or grand theft - those things don't suddenly stop being crimes, do they?

Equally because something is 'unenforceable' *cough* , doesn't make it any less of a law. I could go out on the street right now and start dumping trash all over the place, would I get caught? Probably not, but it would still be against the law.

Finally back on the subject of Kodi - how many times does it need to be said, KODI IS NOT THERE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CONTENT, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IT'S PURPOSE.

[duby229]

It's fine to disagree with a particular law - many people do, but what you're saying is just plain arrogant.

What 'most' *cough* people do or don't do doesn't somehow legitimise something. If enough people commit arson, assault or grand theft - those things don't suddenly stop being crimes, do they?

Equally because something is 'unenforceable' *cough* , doesn't make it any less of a law. I could go out on the street right now and start dumping trash all over the place, would I get caught? Probably not, but it would still be against the law.

Finally back on the subject of Kodi - how many times does it need to be said, KODI IS NOT THERE TO PROVIDE YOU WITH CONTENT, THAT HAS NEVER BEEN IT'S PURPOSE.

So then it has no purpose. That's just fine. But it is what it is....

Unenforceable laws are exactly the same as no law at all. In fact it's worse because an unenforceable law can't regulate activity.

EDIT: And yes, if everyone stated burning their homes, there would be nothing any law enforcement agency could do about it. But how it is that you equate entertainment with burning your own home is pretty telling about you. Why do you think it is that most people stream multimedia, but almost nobody burns down their home? It's because streaming multimedia is the thing that makes logical sense and burning down your own home doesn't. Now why is it that you equated those two thing together?

[polarathene]

Which is a view that no longer works. In fact your view hasn't been true since at least 2004, and it was building up to that since dial up was invented.... The fact is that shit happened and people don't rent movies anymore. They don't do it from rental stores or retail stores. What they do is get online and google search for a stream. Just because -you- grew up in a time bofore that was true doesn't mean everybody did. You really need to stop looking at your own opinion and start looking at what is actually happening in this world.

Unenforceable BS is just that. If watching a movie is illegal then it's plainly obvious that DRM itself is illegal.

Mate, nothing wrong with watching movies. Just pointing out that content such as the movies you'd normally go to the cinema to pay for are only legal to stream through licensed content providers whom also license you the right to view the content via agreement. You asked about how to define the legality of it, I thought I made that very clear. Nothing has changed on that part, the physical distribution isn't as maintstream as it was sure, but now there are large digital services that provide access legally... and ones that don't.

Yes, there are places online and ways to get the content that would normally require being paid for in some way free instead.... that doesn't mean it is legal. I don't know what makes you think otherwise that it would be legal? Do you think it's legal to steal from a shop because you can take the goods from them and run off without paying? Are they going to enforce you to pay for the goods? Is their security measures good enough to prevent you from stealing or catch you? You have a right to eat food, stealing it from providers without paying, doesn't mean your right to eat legalizes the act.

A service not like Netflix is pretty cheap and provides quite a bit of content each month where a network of family/friends can use the account(your subscription allows for multiple users). It supports the content creators. Perhaps the monetization model still isn't quite there yet with the current options, I dunno? You've got some services offering up content to stream immediately upon release and tv shows that provide the entire season, no ads or waiting. You've got movies you can rent or buy license to for a much cheaper price than a ticket at the cinema etc. As nice as free content is and streaming it, is that going to support those who create it in the first place if everyone were to take that stance? It's viable for you because others will financially support content creators, but it's not always enough. Some great shows that have to stop production because they're not bringing in enough for another season, same can apply to films.

I suppose you do the same for games? Personally I don't pay for launch prices, I'm fine waiting til an xmas/steam sale a couple years later where the price is much less, unless I'm a huge fan of the game. I do understand where you're coming from but it's a bit arrogant to insist everyone should get the content for free without understanding the impact of that. This is going off topic a bit as the point is Kodi's responsibility is not providing you with the content, you got your answer as to why and how the legality of content is defined as to why.

[polarathene]

So then it has no purpose. That's just fine. But it is what it is....

Unenforceable laws are exactly the same as no law at all. In fact it's worse because an unenforceable law can't regulate activity.

This discussion is giving me bad memories. Please don't tell me your the reddit user curiousone6151: https://www.reddit.com/user/curiousone6151

Nooo, can't be. You're not that dense surely. You still seem to share a bit in common :\

If you don't think the law is enforceable, why not let your authorities know about all the pirated content you're streaming and encouraging others to do, get really vocal about it in your local community, make it well known that your a firm believer that it's ok to do so and show others how to do so(maybe host an after school or lunch class at the local highschool or some regular meetup group?). See how well that goes, see how much that law doesn't regulate it.

It's not that it's unenforceable or not that they can't regulate it, it's just due to technology it would be a huge waste of resources to enforce on a wide scale. While also a total dick move if they went ahead with it requiring people that aren't doing anything illegal to be subject to the invasive approach required, just like DRM doesn't affect those illegally watching the content, it affects those legally watching it :\ To properly enforce it would be ridiculous though, it's only going to happen when you make yourself an easy target. You're not that stupid though right, so you won't actually take up that challenge, if you do, for extra brownie points, sell or charge a fee instead, make a little business of it, or get a nice big projector screen and many chairs and do some charity screenings of popular movies.