It won't make a dent on piracy, in fact the use of Kodi will likely now increase as any press is good press.
Just like electricity, people will always take the path of least resistance. If I open Netflix to watch an episode of something, and they only have half of the series/season, I'm just going to use Kodi to watch it for free. Why would I order a DVD and wait for days? Or buy it and wait hours to download it? Or setup another subscription service for a monthly cost? Why do any of this when I can be watching it within seconds, cost doesn't even factor in, it's just so easy and convenient.
If Kodi/Exodus was a fully legal, licensed platform whereby I could pay monthly/per-show (at an agreeable price), I'd pay - because it's so easy to use and it has almost everything.
Until that day though, I've cancelled all streaming services (as they removed my favourite shows or only offer series/seasons I don't want) apart from Prime as I like the delivery times and cloud storage. I don't even have a TV aerial anymore as that broke, I just have 3 TVs, 3 Firesticks and a Chromecast, job done.
>Why do any of this when I can be watching it within seconds, cost doesn't even factor in, it's just so easy and convenient.
Because it is stealing. Some people still believe in paying for value.
Prime has a boat-load of movies and tv shows available for free or pay to watch on demand. I think their prices are a little high for 24hr rental (3.99$), but still it is legal. It is better to not go to jail than to feed one's entertainment lust.
We are in the middle of such an uncomfortable transition.
Every company has their own stupid fucking platform, which you may or may not be able to get on your device, or which may or may not support streaming to your streaming device. I am someone who wants an elegant simple solution to something like this in my house, why the fuck can't I just have one god damn app that can load ALL of my shows/movies/livetv and takes care of payment to whichever company is providing the content or gives them a way to insert ads for free content.
These raids (not this one in particular) can have a real impact. I'm an unabashed pirate, but it's gotten harder and harder to find a good, safe public tracker for BitTorrent. My dad can't even figure it out anymore after the private tracker I got him an invite for shutdown.
When kickass went down, people said it's like hydra. But I can't figure out where the new heads are. I'm down to piratebay and usenet only.
Sure I could spend time figuring it all out again, but that takes time and effort. So I end up buying stuff.
They'll never stop all piracy. They just want to make sure the masses don't know how to easily pirate. It's an 80/20 situation.
You're falling for the "Kodi is only a piracy platform" myth. You can certainly use Kodi for viewing things you've recorded over-the-air (which is my own use case), without resorting to pirated media.
I used to pay for a hulu subscription, because even with a few ads it was really convenient. Now, there are less of the shows I want to watch, and the ads are absolutely, insultingly ridicululous. It will seriously play 10 minutes of ads in 5 minute increments for a 20 minute show. Every ad block is now 3 advertisements long, some of them require you to interact, and every show has at least 3 breaks for ads. Sometimes it'll run ads AFTER the show ends so you watch ads to see the credits, or in order to see the next episode! They have literally made streaming worse than regular TV and after this weekend I finally had enough and just installed Kodi.
Your example of Netflix having only half a season and then having to add a second subscription service to watch the rest is a straw man.
It feels more like "I already pay for Netflix, so why do I have to pay anyone else for content Netflix doesn't have?" That's a bit like asking why you should pay for CNN and HBO. Basic cable should come with ALL the content, right?
To the movie industry, here are my demands: high quality, DRM free downloads of MKV files, with nice subtitles, multiple audio tracks, etc, that can be purchased using only open source software on the client. I won't settle for anything less. That's what the competetion offers.
I have used Kodi with software such as Sickrage to download tv shows but with Netflix and Amazon Prime subscriptions alongside iPlayer that covers the majority of shows we watch. The Raspberry Pi running Sickrage is now rarely used whereas the PS4 running Netflix is used most evenings. As you say, it's the path of least resistance.
Piracy is about wanting stuff for free. Nothing more and nothing less.
iTunes has 99% of pirated content. You can start streaming damn near any movie or TV show you want with about 4 clicks. It takes less than 30 seconds. But it costs money.
Piracy isn't a convenience problem. It's a not wanting to spend money for things problem.
Personally I think the entertainment industry is approaching the pirating issue the wrong way.
They should all be looking into expanding their web tech. Serve ad's to people that want to watch your content for free, have a pay service for those that don't want ad's.
On the other hand I had sky... I paid £70 a month which is A LOT compared to netflix etc, and everytime I wanted to watch something I had to be served with 3 x 1:30' ad' sessions for a 20' episode of friends... I mean why do I even pay if you going to serve me intrusive ad's. No thank you, I prefer having netflix and amazon prime that has a lot to watch and if I want something specifically that isn't available to those 2 am gonna torrent it like a boss.
I don't understand what's so hard about putting their whole film catalog online. Let me pay a buck to download any movie your studio produced in some simple format without any crapware or subscriptions or region-locking and I will do so every time instead of pirating.
The marginal cost of offering a movie for downloading must be pretty close to 0. Why can't studios simply tap the opportunity of cheap hassle-free downloads?
> Personally I think the entertainment industry is approaching the pirating issue the wrong way.
I think the big problem going forward will be peoples willingness to pay. Just look at the current landscape of OTT services and people are beginning to get annoyed over paying for so many. I personally don't think the individual OTT market will keep pushing forward the way it is because at some people will get fed up with paying for so many different services. And while you can cancel at anytime, who wants to deal with remembering to sign up and cancel every time a new show comes along? Never mind the annoyance of traversing in and out of services to watch different shows or watchlists -- this by the way is where I feel TiVO got it right by combining regular recordings with online.
My hope and likely dream scenarios is we begin to see a shift away from TV distributed over COAX and proprietary boxes, and instead consumed through services like Vue / SlingTV. These platforms advance to being more than traditional delivery mechanisms by allowing integration of OTT services to be consumed like a regular channel.
The entertainment industry isn't stupid. They are doing their best to maximize revenues from their products given the current landscape of cable networks, streaming providers, on-demand, etc.
The ability to make bolder strategy choices is also hampered by the need to enter into distribution contracts with the above-mentioned providers.
If you do the math, I'd guess revenues would be higher doing what the entertainment industry currently does than what you propose. While this will lead many people into pirating, it's still likely a pretty small percentage.
Netflix did $8.8 billion in revenue last year. U.S. domestic box office receipts were around $11.3 billion and were around $30 billion globally.
In the US alone, given Netflix' current subscriber base of 49 million, it would cost each subscriber would have to pay a little over $19 per month extra just to make up for domestic box office revenues. When you factor in that Netflix needs to make some money on top of that, as well as whatever scaling is necessary, that number needs to go up even further. And then you need to makeup all the additional money that comes from rentals and distribution deals outside of Netflix. There is a reason why Netflix only gets a small portion of quality movies -- because companies can make more signing deals with companies other than Netflix.
Would most people be willing to pay over $100 per month for an all-you-can-eat movie service? I doubt it, considering that doesn't even account for all the television programming, which takes up a much larger portion of people's screen time than movies do. First-run television content earns a lot of revenue, as do live shows, particularly sports. ESPN alone costs cable companies $7 per subscriber and that's with lots of ad-supported content. Without ad support, that number would be closer to $12 and that doesn't account for the additional production costs to make up for all the additional airtime that needs filled.
I think to truly create an all-you-can-eat, comprehensive entertainment streaming service, you'd be look at several hundred dollars per month in subscription fees. And you'd still have to figure out some sort of way to incentivize content producers to continue producing the same level of content they currently do and support competition so there is a continued push towards higher quality.
Vimeo has a great platform that I think could be expanded to big budget / Hollywood film. They already abide by what seems to me a Bandcamp-meets-Spotify model but for video. I really think getting on a service such as Vimeo is the next logical step for film to take. Although, some in the industry may not be thrilled.
What's different between selling one of these and selling, say a PC with Bittorrent and bookmarks to the movie section of the PirateBay pre-loaded (or whatever website people are using these days)?
Intent. These people were selling a box with the specific intent to watch pirated movies. If you were to sell a PC that "just happened" to have links on it then I imagine no one would really bother with you. If you were advertising the PC as a "watch movies for free" PC then the Federation Against Copyright Theft would try to stop you.
One of the key points in the case is the way they are advertised as having access to subscription channels for free and they're pre-loaded with the apps to do so. Most of the articles make that distinction too.
If you start selling a PC loaded with that software that's advertised as "download La La Land and 100s of other new movies for free!", it's a different ballgame as the intent is clearly there.
I do wonder how far it goes though, if you look at this listing, it's only implied that the illegal streaming services are on there, but it's pretty clear they are when you look at the customer questions:
Not much. A person selling a PC preloaded with torrent clients and links to torrent sites, and advertising it as a way to breach copyrights, would possibly find themselves on the wrong end of this law. If anyone could be bothered to prosecute, that is.
These boxes are advertised as a method of watching live football without paying. If you advertised and sold Jodi boxes without this claim you would be left alone but the copyright infringement is used as a sales tool hence the prosecution.
Depends on the country you're dealing with, but distributing information on how to access illegal material is sometimes just as illegal as distributing the material itself.
There's also probably an element of tax evasion involved.
If you can't setup your own Kodi box, I don't know how in the world you would be sold one and actually use it. It isn't simple to setup and it is more complicated to maintain (for someone who couldn't just set one up themselves).
I think that's one of the big problems the Kodi team has with these 'fully loaded' boxes [1].
People buy them and they work for a week, and then the streams break, etc. and these people have no idea how to update them so they come on the various Kodi support forums blaming Kodi for all the problems. Meanwhile the sellers have disappeared and are selling the boxes under a new name.
Having used Kodi for close to 15 years (from XBMP through XBMC), it's definitely taken some tinkering, and you still run into edge cases and occasional crashes.
However the Kodi team has made an amazing job simplifying installation on numerous platforms, to the point where the most advanced thing you need to know is how to use a USB stick and 7-zip.
If these people (box sellers) ship it with a remote control, and a self-contained Kodi distro (Ubuntu), I have no problem seeing anyone using it intuitively as plug & play.
Maintaining is mostly an issue with your own library in my experience. If that part is outsourced to third party plugins there's not much to maintain. Though if that plugin breaks/is forked/whatever then you're boned.
I really feel for the Kodi team though, getting blame for piracy, numerous support requests stemming from unaffiliated third party plugins, and all for an amazing open source product they've made for free.
You'll be surprised... My uncle and auntie are using it now... they are into their 70's and don't know how to use any tech apart from a remote control.
A cousin of mine, who's a dentist in his mid 40's and hmm lets say he lacks behind on technology, found a way to set it up and gave it to them.
They use it and they don't even understand that its using the internet to stream pirated data... I told them that and they were like "no, he bought it for us from amazon, why they sell illegal stuff there, its free".
So yes I have valid proof of 2 people that don't know how to Google - Google fully using it.
A very non-technical friend of mine bought one on eBay and said it was very easy to use. Just plugged it into the TV over HDMI and it worked great.
It gave access to just about every cable channel and every film and TV show. It cost £50 - his theory was that if he had to buy a new one every month, it was still cheaper and easier to use than the alternatives.
Back in the 90's everyone knew a source for pirated analog satellite decoders and if it stopped working you went back to the guy you bought it from. Isn't this just the modern version of that?
There's a little shop near me that sells Kodi boxes. They used to build PCs when that was a thing, now they do laptop and phone repairs. £69 for the box including installation, £20 for updates. That's a bargain compared to £70/month for Sky. Most people have a geeky nephew who'll sort it out for a bit of pocket money.
There are vendors for these things in malls in Canada even. There are Kodi addons that make it super simple, just push a button and stream movies off file lockers kind of thing.
It's pretty much dead simple and "just works" - with the exception of what happens when the services they use dies. Then you're in trouble. The quality is also often abysmal.
That's why I'd rather use the Usenet setup (Sonarr/CouchPotato/Sabnzbd/Plex/Emby) and pay $10/mo to a sketchy IPTV service, I know they at least try to maintain their streams and if you hunt around you can find decent quality.
the interface is very easy to use, from what I understand these "fully loaded" ones alreaddy have the apps installed and configured, so it would probably be easier than a roku for most people. Then they just dont do any maintenance
Can someone comment on what is the business model of those who set up streaming servers for Kodi etc. ? Bandwidth is expensive , why would you pay for it just to give it away for free ?
Kodi itself is just the new name for XBMC (XBox Media Center). It's an open source media centre project, and they are in no way affiliated with any of this.
"fully loaded kodi boxes" are just set top boxes pre-loaded with kodi and a number of plugin that make it convenient to access pirate streams or download content in a style reminiscent of popcorn time. Since These guys are basically just bundling Kodi and some plugins on cheap hardware, they make a quick buck selling that. The torrents and streams are just there anyway, so it's not a cost they need to concern themselves with.
There's are many shady streaming sites that are designed to be accessed through a web browser where they serve up ads and malware. There are also quite a few file locker services where people put streaming media, same idea. Then there are aggregators that index all this content. The Kodi plugins basically scrape both the aggregators and the file hosts and bypass all of their ads.
"Fact said it believed the suspects had made in the region of £250,000 selling the devices online.
Kodi is free software built by volunteers to bring videos, music, games and photographs together in one easy-to-use application.
Some shops sell legal set-top boxes and TV sticks, often called Kodi boxes, preloaded with the software.
The developers behind Kodi say their software does not contain any content of its own and is designed to play legally owned media or content "freely available" on the internet."
So is this like Popcorn time, then? Did the sellers break laws? Did the developers break laws?
Kodi's developers didn't, no. The way the streaming boxes work is they add a bunch of piracy streaming plugins to a Kodi installation. It's not easy for casual users to do this though. If you download Kodi today you can't just access that stuff. You need to enable access to unknown source plugins then find the plugins (and hope they aren't doing anything nefarious), download them and install them in Kodi. It's essentially the same as Android.
Kodi does have a lot of plugins to access a wide variety of free content (nearly 400 video content plugins alone). You can see what is available here: http://addons.kodi.tv/
It's an open source media centre application - used to be called XBMC. The illegal stuff are plugins for the software. I haven't used it since it was XBMC, quite a few years ago, but I imagine you could definitely plug things like Popcorn Time into it.
Copyright holders considering DRM to promote the purchase of their work rather than the piracy of their work should really be aware that there are a lot of people who will not consume your product if it's not free. The notion that you're protecting your work is not realistic. For many the options are to consume the product any way they can, or not consume the product. The thinking that DRM will ultimately make someone purchase something they never intended to purchase in the first place is unlikely. By having the pricing reflect this "lost" revenue (which was never lost, it was always assumed) you're only punishing the people who weren't going to pirate your product anyway. You're not punishing pirates. If you make a movie rental $1 instead of $4 you're much more likely to sell the product to interested people as well as the people who would have pirated the product if it were more expensive. Stop investing in DRM. You're wasting your time and the investment to defeat DRM will always be worthwhile to your competition.
I know it's slightly off topic, but I can't help thinking that the Federation Against Copyright Theft should be going up against those big businesses that actually steal the copyrights themselves.
So like when one studio steals the copyrights from another, or from the content creator directly.
IMO it is similar to pre-install a browser with bookmarks to pages listing, but not necessarily providing, such copyright infringing material. I'm not sure if this is really illegal - I guess it depends on the country you live in.
It is a little more complicated than that though. A computer or web browser is general purpose. These boxes are sold specifically for copyright violation or whatever you want to call it (pirating, theft, etc).
Maybe if Mozilla/Google offered a version of Firefox/Chrome that came pre-configured with links to a bunch of torrent sites and bundled in extensions to download torrents, unpack archives and play media it would be similar.
[+] [-] iDemonix|9 years ago|reply
Just like electricity, people will always take the path of least resistance. If I open Netflix to watch an episode of something, and they only have half of the series/season, I'm just going to use Kodi to watch it for free. Why would I order a DVD and wait for days? Or buy it and wait hours to download it? Or setup another subscription service for a monthly cost? Why do any of this when I can be watching it within seconds, cost doesn't even factor in, it's just so easy and convenient.
If Kodi/Exodus was a fully legal, licensed platform whereby I could pay monthly/per-show (at an agreeable price), I'd pay - because it's so easy to use and it has almost everything.
Until that day though, I've cancelled all streaming services (as they removed my favourite shows or only offer series/seasons I don't want) apart from Prime as I like the delivery times and cloud storage. I don't even have a TV aerial anymore as that broke, I just have 3 TVs, 3 Firesticks and a Chromecast, job done.
[+] [-] Ascetik|9 years ago|reply
Because it is stealing. Some people still believe in paying for value.
Prime has a boat-load of movies and tv shows available for free or pay to watch on demand. I think their prices are a little high for 24hr rental (3.99$), but still it is legal. It is better to not go to jail than to feed one's entertainment lust.
[+] [-] frebord|9 years ago|reply
Every company has their own stupid fucking platform, which you may or may not be able to get on your device, or which may or may not support streaming to your streaming device. I am someone who wants an elegant simple solution to something like this in my house, why the fuck can't I just have one god damn app that can load ALL of my shows/movies/livetv and takes care of payment to whichever company is providing the content or gives them a way to insert ads for free content.
It is no wonder that people use Kodi.
[+] [-] rhino369|9 years ago|reply
When kickass went down, people said it's like hydra. But I can't figure out where the new heads are. I'm down to piratebay and usenet only.
Sure I could spend time figuring it all out again, but that takes time and effort. So I end up buying stuff.
They'll never stop all piracy. They just want to make sure the masses don't know how to easily pirate. It's an 80/20 situation.
[+] [-] flyinghamster|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mustacheemperor|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rconti|9 years ago|reply
It feels more like "I already pay for Netflix, so why do I have to pay anyone else for content Netflix doesn't have?" That's a bit like asking why you should pay for CNN and HBO. Basic cable should come with ALL the content, right?
[+] [-] Sir_Cmpwn|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] droopyEyelids|9 years ago|reply
The problem is with piracy plugins.
Let's not besmirch Kodi, it's really a shining example of successful non-commercial open source.
[+] [-] colinramsay|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forrestthewoods|9 years ago|reply
Piracy is about wanting stuff for free. Nothing more and nothing less.
iTunes has 99% of pirated content. You can start streaming damn near any movie or TV show you want with about 4 clicks. It takes less than 30 seconds. But it costs money.
Piracy isn't a convenience problem. It's a not wanting to spend money for things problem.
[+] [-] forgetsusername|9 years ago|reply
How it it streamable on Kodi, but takes so long to download from a legitimate source?
[+] [-] serge2k|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] muse900|9 years ago|reply
They should all be looking into expanding their web tech. Serve ad's to people that want to watch your content for free, have a pay service for those that don't want ad's.
On the other hand I had sky... I paid £70 a month which is A LOT compared to netflix etc, and everytime I wanted to watch something I had to be served with 3 x 1:30' ad' sessions for a 20' episode of friends... I mean why do I even pay if you going to serve me intrusive ad's. No thank you, I prefer having netflix and amazon prime that has a lot to watch and if I want something specifically that isn't available to those 2 am gonna torrent it like a boss.
[+] [-] adrianN|9 years ago|reply
The marginal cost of offering a movie for downloading must be pretty close to 0. Why can't studios simply tap the opportunity of cheap hassle-free downloads?
[+] [-] TarpitCarnivore|9 years ago|reply
I think the big problem going forward will be peoples willingness to pay. Just look at the current landscape of OTT services and people are beginning to get annoyed over paying for so many. I personally don't think the individual OTT market will keep pushing forward the way it is because at some people will get fed up with paying for so many different services. And while you can cancel at anytime, who wants to deal with remembering to sign up and cancel every time a new show comes along? Never mind the annoyance of traversing in and out of services to watch different shows or watchlists -- this by the way is where I feel TiVO got it right by combining regular recordings with online.
My hope and likely dream scenarios is we begin to see a shift away from TV distributed over COAX and proprietary boxes, and instead consumed through services like Vue / SlingTV. These platforms advance to being more than traditional delivery mechanisms by allowing integration of OTT services to be consumed like a regular channel.
[+] [-] ssharp|9 years ago|reply
The ability to make bolder strategy choices is also hampered by the need to enter into distribution contracts with the above-mentioned providers.
If you do the math, I'd guess revenues would be higher doing what the entertainment industry currently does than what you propose. While this will lead many people into pirating, it's still likely a pretty small percentage.
Netflix did $8.8 billion in revenue last year. U.S. domestic box office receipts were around $11.3 billion and were around $30 billion globally.
In the US alone, given Netflix' current subscriber base of 49 million, it would cost each subscriber would have to pay a little over $19 per month extra just to make up for domestic box office revenues. When you factor in that Netflix needs to make some money on top of that, as well as whatever scaling is necessary, that number needs to go up even further. And then you need to makeup all the additional money that comes from rentals and distribution deals outside of Netflix. There is a reason why Netflix only gets a small portion of quality movies -- because companies can make more signing deals with companies other than Netflix.
Would most people be willing to pay over $100 per month for an all-you-can-eat movie service? I doubt it, considering that doesn't even account for all the television programming, which takes up a much larger portion of people's screen time than movies do. First-run television content earns a lot of revenue, as do live shows, particularly sports. ESPN alone costs cable companies $7 per subscriber and that's with lots of ad-supported content. Without ad support, that number would be closer to $12 and that doesn't account for the additional production costs to make up for all the additional airtime that needs filled.
I think to truly create an all-you-can-eat, comprehensive entertainment streaming service, you'd be look at several hundred dollars per month in subscription fees. And you'd still have to figure out some sort of way to incentivize content producers to continue producing the same level of content they currently do and support competition so there is a continued push towards higher quality.
[+] [-] ascorbic|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mabramo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TorKlingberg|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bluedino|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] onion2k|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mattmanser|9 years ago|reply
If you start selling a PC loaded with that software that's advertised as "download La La Land and 100s of other new movies for free!", it's a different ballgame as the intent is clearly there.
I do wonder how far it goes though, if you look at this listing, it's only implied that the illegal streaming services are on there, but it's pretty clear they are when you look at the customer questions:
https://www.amazon.co.uk/DROIBOX-Android-Player-Amlogic-Blue...
[+] [-] DanBC|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] celticninja|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mathgeek|9 years ago|reply
There's also probably an element of tax evasion involved.
[+] [-] mulletbum|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snowwolf|9 years ago|reply
People buy them and they work for a week, and then the streams break, etc. and these people have no idea how to update them so they come on the various Kodi support forums blaming Kodi for all the problems. Meanwhile the sellers have disappeared and are selling the boxes under a new name.
[1] https://kodi.tv/the-piracy-box-sellers-and-youtube-promoters...
[+] [-] croon|9 years ago|reply
However the Kodi team has made an amazing job simplifying installation on numerous platforms, to the point where the most advanced thing you need to know is how to use a USB stick and 7-zip.
If these people (box sellers) ship it with a remote control, and a self-contained Kodi distro (Ubuntu), I have no problem seeing anyone using it intuitively as plug & play.
Maintaining is mostly an issue with your own library in my experience. If that part is outsourced to third party plugins there's not much to maintain. Though if that plugin breaks/is forked/whatever then you're boned.
I really feel for the Kodi team though, getting blame for piracy, numerous support requests stemming from unaffiliated third party plugins, and all for an amazing open source product they've made for free.
[+] [-] muse900|9 years ago|reply
A cousin of mine, who's a dentist in his mid 40's and hmm lets say he lacks behind on technology, found a way to set it up and gave it to them.
They use it and they don't even understand that its using the internet to stream pirated data... I told them that and they were like "no, he bought it for us from amazon, why they sell illegal stuff there, its free".
So yes I have valid proof of 2 people that don't know how to Google - Google fully using it.
[+] [-] blowski|9 years ago|reply
It gave access to just about every cable channel and every film and TV show. It cost £50 - his theory was that if he had to buy a new one every month, it was still cheaper and easier to use than the alternatives.
[+] [-] kalleboo|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jdietrich|9 years ago|reply
There's a little shop near me that sells Kodi boxes. They used to build PCs when that was a thing, now they do laptop and phone repairs. £69 for the box including installation, £20 for updates. That's a bargain compared to £70/month for Sky. Most people have a geeky nephew who'll sort it out for a bit of pocket money.
[+] [-] problems|9 years ago|reply
It's pretty much dead simple and "just works" - with the exception of what happens when the services they use dies. Then you're in trouble. The quality is also often abysmal.
That's why I'd rather use the Usenet setup (Sonarr/CouchPotato/Sabnzbd/Plex/Emby) and pay $10/mo to a sketchy IPTV service, I know they at least try to maintain their streams and if you hunt around you can find decent quality.
[+] [-] mathgeek|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dec0dedab0de|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] manishsharan|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pdpi|9 years ago|reply
"fully loaded kodi boxes" are just set top boxes pre-loaded with kodi and a number of plugin that make it convenient to access pirate streams or download content in a style reminiscent of popcorn time. Since These guys are basically just bundling Kodi and some plugins on cheap hardware, they make a quick buck selling that. The torrents and streams are just there anyway, so it's not a cost they need to concern themselves with.
[+] [-] jacob019|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ssharp|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hellbanner|9 years ago|reply
Kodi is free software built by volunteers to bring videos, music, games and photographs together in one easy-to-use application.
Some shops sell legal set-top boxes and TV sticks, often called Kodi boxes, preloaded with the software.
The developers behind Kodi say their software does not contain any content of its own and is designed to play legally owned media or content "freely available" on the internet."
So is this like Popcorn time, then? Did the sellers break laws? Did the developers break laws?
[+] [-] eco|9 years ago|reply
Kodi does have a lot of plugins to access a wide variety of free content (nearly 400 video content plugins alone). You can see what is available here: http://addons.kodi.tv/
[+] [-] jwarren|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zelon88|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] daemin|9 years ago|reply
So like when one studio steals the copyrights from another, or from the content creator directly.
[+] [-] dublinben|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] SN76477|9 years ago|reply
I will watch several hours of television and entertainment a night, if I did this via amazon I would end up paying well over $200 a month.
If they can scale that back to something reasonable like $75 a month, I am sure that I would be more willing to pay.
[+] [-] jack-in-the-box|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] satysin|9 years ago|reply
Maybe if Mozilla/Google offered a version of Firefox/Chrome that came pre-configured with links to a bunch of torrent sites and bundled in extensions to download torrents, unpack archives and play media it would be similar.
[+] [-] Bartweiss|9 years ago|reply