6 ms·

Kodi: Open source TV app inspires full-blown copyright panic in the UK

55 points by Errorcod3 9y ago

kodithrow 9y ago
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.
- skdotdan 9y ago
  $13/month?
  - kodithrow 9y ago
    Kodi has an add-on system where 3rd party software can be loaded. Some of these add-ons are paid subscription services for live TV. They are substantially more reliable and have better quality than the free add-ons for live TV.
    - bnjms 9y ago
      What is the name of the addons? I'll pay I just don't want any TV connection anymore.
      - wcfields 9y ago
        Go to http://iptvtalk.org/ http://iptvtalk.org/ forum and read up. There's 3 "major" IPTV services and about a dozen or more specialized targeting various ethnic diaspora.
      - Pigo 9y ago
        I'm curious about this as well. There's been some update to either Kodi or Exodus recently that has greatly slowed everything down. I'd totally be willing to pay for a service that has better quality experience and just the shit I actually want. Even Netflix is becoming bloated with garbage I can't sit through a single episode of.
    - skdotdan 9y ago
      Thanks for your answer.
- maccard 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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 9y ago
      Fair enough. I don't agree but I understand your view. Thanks for responding.
JamesBaxter 9y ago
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
- rhino369 9y ago
  >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. 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?
- kybernetikos 9y ago
  > 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 9y ago
    The seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.
joshbaptiste 9y ago
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.
joaodlf 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/te...
  - jkgeyti 9y ago
    This is being complicated by the out-of-touch rules on what constitutes "live TV" - I occasionally watch news from my home country through a VPN, and sports events that are also might be broadcast live to at least one country somewhere. Despite neither having anything to do with live broadcasting in the UK, I still have to pay TV license.
  - madaxe_again 9y ago
    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.
retrac98 9y ago
Give consumers a legal service that's better than the illegal alternative.
- jasonkostempski 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
LordKano 9y ago
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.
- notyourwork 9y ago
  If you pay $100/month for cable, than I could see someone justifying $400/year as worth it. Especially considering you probably have more options.
- ekimekim 9y ago
  Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these work, but how could an external force stop them from working? Aren't they just a pretty GUI on top of long-standing content sources like bittorrent networks?
  - LordKano 9y ago
    I'm referring to the company who made and provides updates for the device. They can be shut down and the users won't get automatic updates that point them to new stream sources.
- talldan 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
- 9y ago
hunta2097 9y ago
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 9y ago
  "Run unknown software"? Kodi is open source and community written.
  - hunta2097 9y ago
    Yes. 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.
  - ekimekim 9y ago
    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.
  - paol 9y ago
    The gp's issue (and the law's) is with the add-ons used to access pirated content sources, not with Kodi.
- ParkerK 9y ago
  >Whilst I think you would be an idiot to run unknown software on your home network 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
phkahler 9y ago
>> 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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    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.
- alistairSH 9y ago
  Broadcast TV only gets you local sports, or maybe some national-interest stuff (in the US). Cable is required to watch teams from other markets. 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.
- bumblebeard 9y ago
  It looks pretty cheap in the US actually, not much more than home cable. For example, here's what Comcast offers bars and restaurants: https://business.comcast.com/tv/restaurants https://business.comcast.com/tv/restaurants
  - maccard 9y ago
    It looks like they're charging 190 dollars a month for the full sports package. That seems insanely expensive. I don't know how it compares to the UK but with sky you can get their max tier bundle for ~90 pounds a month, and that gives you al their sports and movies channels. (Not that I think it's good value, but certainly better than 190 dollars plus tax!)
tracker1 9y ago
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 9y ago
  Android TV supports directtv now?
  - tracker1 9y ago
    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.
- scarface74 9y ago
  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? 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.

55 points by Errorcod3 9y ago

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.

skdotdan 9y ago
$13/month?
- kodithrow 9y ago
  Kodi has an add-on system where 3rd party software can be loaded. Some of these add-ons are paid subscription services for live TV. They are substantially more reliable and have better quality than the free add-ons for live TV.
  - bnjms 9y ago
    What is the name of the addons? I'll pay I just don't want any TV connection anymore.
    - wcfields 9y ago
      Go to http://iptvtalk.org/ http://iptvtalk.org/ forum and read up. There's 3 "major" IPTV services and about a dozen or more specialized targeting various ethnic diaspora.
    - Pigo 9y ago
      I'm curious about this as well. There's been some update to either Kodi or Exodus recently that has greatly slowed everything down. I'd totally be willing to pay for a service that has better quality experience and just the shit I actually want. Even Netflix is becoming bloated with garbage I can't sit through a single episode of.
  - skdotdan 9y ago
    Thanks for your answer.
maccard 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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 9y ago
    Fair enough. I don't agree but I understand your view. Thanks for responding.

JamesBaxter 9y ago

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

rhino369 9y ago
>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. 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?
kybernetikos 9y ago
> 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 9y ago
  The seeder is the one distributing the content, thereby violating the copyright. Viewing is not illegal, making the copy is.

joshbaptiste 9y ago

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.

joaodlf 9y ago

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 9y ago
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/telling-us-you-dont-need-a-tv-licence http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/topics/te...
- jkgeyti 9y ago
  This is being complicated by the out-of-touch rules on what constitutes "live TV" - I occasionally watch news from my home country through a VPN, and sports events that are also might be broadcast live to at least one country somewhere. Despite neither having anything to do with live broadcasting in the UK, I still have to pay TV license.
- madaxe_again 9y ago
  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.

retrac98 9y ago

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

jasonkostempski 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.

LordKano 9y ago

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.

notyourwork 9y ago
If you pay $100/month for cable, than I could see someone justifying $400/year as worth it. Especially considering you probably have more options.
ekimekim 9y ago
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding how these work, but how could an external force stop them from working? Aren't they just a pretty GUI on top of long-standing content sources like bittorrent networks?
- LordKano 9y ago
  I'm referring to the company who made and provides updates for the device. They can be shut down and the users won't get automatic updates that point them to new stream sources.
talldan 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
9y ago

hunta2097 9y ago

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 9y ago
"Run unknown software"? Kodi is open source and community written.
- hunta2097 9y ago
  Yes. 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.
- ekimekim 9y ago
  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.
- paol 9y ago
  The gp's issue (and the law's) is with the add-ons used to access pirated content sources, not with Kodi.
ParkerK 9y ago
>Whilst I think you would be an idiot to run unknown software on your home network 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

phkahler 9y ago

>> 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 9y ago
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 9y ago
  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.
alistairSH 9y ago
Broadcast TV only gets you local sports, or maybe some national-interest stuff (in the US). Cable is required to watch teams from other markets. 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.
bumblebeard 9y ago
It looks pretty cheap in the US actually, not much more than home cable. For example, here's what Comcast offers bars and restaurants: https://business.comcast.com/tv/restaurants https://business.comcast.com/tv/restaurants
- maccard 9y ago
  It looks like they're charging 190 dollars a month for the full sports package. That seems insanely expensive. I don't know how it compares to the UK but with sky you can get their max tier bundle for ~90 pounds a month, and that gives you al their sports and movies channels. (Not that I think it's good value, but certainly better than 190 dollars plus tax!)

tracker1 9y ago

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 9y ago
Android TV supports directtv now?
- tracker1 9y ago
  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.
scarface74 9y ago
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? 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.