Five arrests in 'fully loaded' Kodi streaming box raids

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-38906561

by seycombi • 9 years ago

127 256 9 years ago

mulletbum2• 9 years ago

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).

dec0dedab0de• 9 years ago

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

slantyyz4• 9 years ago

> the interface is very easy to use

If they're selling Android Kodi boxes from China (which I suspect they are, since they're widely available, preconfigured and cheap), then I would disagree. These boxes have incredibly flaky UIs.

As for Kodi itself, it's fairly usable, but I would say the process of adding non-public repos for shady add-ons might be a little overcomplicated for a non-enthusiast who just wants to watch a soccer stream.

rconti2• 9 years ago

The interface is one of the worst I've ever seen. I still don't understand how and when and why "Videos" or "Movies" get indexed. You have to have the patience of a monk to attempt to add a media source with a remote control. "Let's see, does it want smb:// ? Should I include my username as part of the string?"

My Kodi install on my smart TV has one purpose: To play things out of a directory on my NAS. Yet I have it added roughly 7 different ways, and have no idea how or why things get cataloged. All I know is I'm too afraid to remove any of the sources because I'm not sure which one's being used.

And I'm not sure I know how to remove a source, either.

I struggled with Kodi on my jailbroken AppleTV2 and it never worked right. At least it does the basic job of playing media from my NAS, so I'm happy. No waiting for Plex to decide to index my content, no fuss, no muss. Open Kodi, play files from NAS.

mathgeek2• 9 years ago

If it's anything like the bandit cable box market of the 90's, buying one means you go back to the source if it needs to be repaired/updated.

muse9002• 9 years ago

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.

blowski• 9 years ago

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.

snowwolf• 9 years ago

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.

[1] https://kodi.tv/the-piracy-box-sellers-and-youtube-promoters...

thirdsun2• 9 years ago

And it leaves a rather bad reputation. Similar to Bittorrent.

Recently an absolutely non-tech-savvy friend of mine explained to a bunch of friends how he was streaming pirated movies, TV etc. via Kodi. I was blown away that he even knew about XBMC / Kodi, the classic media center I've been using for more than a decade (though never with subpar, crappy streams).

Needless to say he only knew about it since it was advertised as enabling piracy. He most certainly didn't download it from official sources and will run into problems in no time.

I just wanted to say that I was very surprised to see Kodi reach mainstream awareness and it's a little sad that this was enabled via the infamous piracy spotlight.

kalleboo• 9 years ago

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?

croon• 9 years ago

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.

problems• 9 years ago

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.

jdietrich• 9 years ago

It's a working class thing.

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.

bluedino• 9 years ago

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)?

mathgeek2• 9 years ago

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.

onion2k• 9 years ago

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.

ominous5• 9 years ago

But you do know that you can watch movies for free if you have internet and a general purpose computer, right? Why is it wrong to say that?

"Warning, this knife can sever arteries.". Is this better?

"Warning, this machine can access copyrighted content. Buy it at your own risk."

Is this better?

mattmanser• 9 years ago

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:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/DROIBOX-Android-Player-Amlogic-Blue...

DanBC• 9 years ago

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.

celticninja2• 9 years ago

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.

jack-in-the-box2• 9 years ago

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.

satysin4• 9 years ago

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.

jack-in-the-box2• 9 years ago

Kodi is also a general purpose media player in the first place. There are enough websites on the Internet that would conveniently offer you such content to click and stream (no need for torrent, unpack etc.) In general Kodi does the same thing - it streams that content over your device (again no torrent, unpacking etc.)

At the end the only real difference is the advertising of that box - meaning if I would somewhat distribute a firefox browser with the proper links and call it the watch any media for free browser I would be in trouble.

mod5• 9 years ago

That's possibly how it will be presented, but I'd argue you're wrong.

The boxes are specifically marketed for copyright violation, sure. But Kodi is a general-purpose media player. It can manage your DVD tray and all that. Your home videos. Etc.

It's similar to bit-torrent in that it has plenty of legal uses (torrents are great for downloading linux distros).

In the example you're responding to, the computer could easily be marketed in the same way as these boxes, and then there would be little distinction beyond ease-of-use.

Bartweiss• 9 years ago

Per the article, the legal status in England isn't clear - a trial case is currently winding through the system.

muse9002• 9 years ago

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.

adrianN3• 9 years ago

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?

martin-adams• 9 years ago

I suspect they value the offering higher if it's in limited supply.

Disney do this with the Disney Vault[1].

Each Disney film is available for purchase for a limited time, after which it is put "in the vault" and not made available in stores for several years until it is once again released.

However, Disney may be the exception here.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

tajen• 9 years ago

Like, I pay $5, I get the official .torrent link legally? This is pure fiction!

KevanM• 9 years ago

Does it make sense financially for them to divide markets and then play the broadcasters off for exclusive rights to show films on scheduled TV.

chatmasta• 9 years ago

Studios sign different distribution deals in different regions. These include box office release and "DVD" (web) release schedules. These regional licensing contracts are often in the range of 5-7 years.

As a result, studios cannot simply offer a film or TV series online at the same time for everybody. As the regional contracts expire and the studios restructure them, I expect to see more direct distribution via online channels.

Cthulhu_• 9 years ago

It's not hard, it's just not maximized profit. There's a lot of brain power invested in how much they can charge and how much advertising they can cram into content, finding the most profitable balance between acquiring, retaining and losing viewers.

lifty• 9 years ago

I would love to have the possibility to be able to hassle free download movies, and I would be willing to pay up to 5 bucks (for certain movies) to do so. But I don't have that option, so instead I have other ways of getting my movies.

e12e2• 9 years ago

They've made this web for themselves, by lobbying for longer and more restrictive copyright.

The most pathetic irony here, is Disney, who made a small fortune milking public domain fairy-tales and yet have fought to prevent their extremely popular figures to become part of that same public domain - even after they clearly are part of a common world-spanning culture - much like 1001 nights, or the Greek mythos.

ascorbic• 9 years ago

Just get Now TV. Seriously. It's loads cheaper than regular Sky, is more flexible in its packages, and has no ads.

LaSombra2• 9 years ago

I keep considering this but I don't want to add another streaming box on my living room or bedroom. I have a Fire TV precisely because of this.

djaychela• 9 years ago

I'd second this, up to a point - my GF has it (she changed from Sky), and it's half the price - £40 for her a month including broadband, etc. My only gripe is that it seems a bit fragmented to me when using the box - there's not a universal UI which allows you to just access all the on demand content that's available, so you have to go into BBC, C4, or the NowTV app, etc.. If it was unified (somehow, I appreciate that's not easy or probably even possible) then I think it would be really hard to beat.

ssharp3• 9 years ago

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.

Hello71• 9 years ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZadCj8O1-0

adrianN3• 9 years ago

You assume that box office goes down to 0 if a movie can be downloaded easily. This is evidently not true, since most movies already can be download easily, just not legally.

bcg1• 9 years ago

Do 100% of "box office receipts" go to the production company? Or is a portion of that overhead for the theater showing the movie?

Also I think you're really missing something important, which the entertainment industry is also ignoring... "all you can eat" is not the only way to do it, there is a market for "a la carte" as well. My wife has been trying to find a way to pay to stream 3 or 4 TV channels only, she specifically does not want to pay for ESPN or other trash television we won't watch. It would be even better if we could find it without ads. Of course such a model is probably unthinkable for content producers that want to bundle their losers in with their winners in order to boost their value.

funnyfacts365• 9 years ago

If people aren't willing to pay $100 for an all you can eat movie service did it even cross your mind that it only means it's overpriced?

acejam• 9 years ago

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.

Yet they can afford to pay Dave Chappelle $60 million for 3 episodes. I love Netflix, but it's clear they are focused on their own original content, and they do a great job at it. Every Netflix show I've watched is great. They don't have the latest and greatest movies because they choose not to buy them.

tomjen34• 9 years ago

I guess that makes sense, if you assume Netflix would not grow widely when they have everything.

You are also assuming the rest of the entertainment complex isn't going to shrink, especially espn which is losing a lot of subscribers.

TarpitCarnivore• 9 years ago

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.

mabramo• 9 years ago

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.

daemin2• 9 years ago

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.

dublinben2• 9 years ago

They're not really fighting against that kind of "copyright theft." They're just an industry front group, so they'd never attack their own backers.

daemin2• 9 years ago

I know that, it is just the words that make up their acronym mean something different to me. So I find it highly amusing to have them be against copy right theft but be backed by the very people that are most likely to actually steal copyrights. Kind of like coal and oil company lobbyist using Green in the title.

TorKlingberg2• 9 years ago

I must say the BBC article does a good job of explaining what a "fully loaded Kodi box" is, keeping it accessible without confusing things.

iDemonix• 9 years ago

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.

Ascetik• 9 years ago

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.

pavel_lishin• 9 years ago

Some people still believe in paying for value.

But apparently not all people believe in charging for value, since a lot of shows, movies, etc. aren't available to stream.

What good is half a season of something, especially if it's the second half? I've not watches shows just because there's no way to catch up to where the current Hulu/Netflix/Whatever offering was. Sometimes I'd pirate it, but sometimes I wasn't really sold enough on the premise to bother.

I wonder what the marketing department would think of that. "Your attempts to sell me something failed so hard, I refused to bother stealing it."

thatcat2• 9 years ago

stealing
go to jail(for watching)

So much hyperbole. The article refers to people selling preloaded piracy boxes for profit, which is different than setting up your own.

comstock2• 9 years ago

I'm curious about this. If there was a public poll, my guess is that the public would be overwhelmingly against sending people to prison for copyright violation. There's some evidence to support this [0].

In fact, I think it's a fact that shows just how messed up the law is. That people can be overwhelmingly against harsh penalties for copyright violation, yet they still exists...

[0] https://torrentfreak.com/piracy-socially-acceptable-110228/

fictioncircle• 9 years ago

Because it is stealing. Some people still believe in paying for value.

I'll care about people stealing from an oligopoly when people care about regulating natural monopolies and oligopolies to the point they behave reasonably.

mikeash2• 9 years ago

It's not stealing, it's unauthorized copying. And I'm pretty sure retail end-user pirates don't go to jail.

In any case, the moral argument doesn't appear to work. People just don't care.

morganvachon2• 9 years ago

It is better to not go to jail than to feed one's entertainment lust.

While I agree with your post overall that ideally the end consumer shouldn't access such content illegally, the days of the end user going to jail or being fined over illicit downloads are long gone. The content companies and the governments finally woke up to the reality that going after those who profit from making the content available, rather than the end user, is the correct thing to do. As the GP said, people will naturally take the easiest path, and often downloading a TV episode from an illicit source is easier than attempting to purchase it legally (for some shows one must subscribe to as many as four streaming services to get all seasons/series).

All of that said, it really is a game of whack-a-mole the governments and content companies are playing by going after the little guys distributing the content. Just as with the war on drugs and the war on terrorism, it's a war that will never be won.

e12e2• 9 years ago

Because it is stealing.

In theft you take something from someone else, and they are then deprived of what you took. I take your loaf of bread, you have one less loaf of bread.

If I copy your movie, you still have your movie.

Now, if I (somehow) get hold of a copy of a digital file you want to sell me, you'll be less likely to be able to get me to buy it (although, studies have shown that those that copy content a lot, also tend to pay for content a lot).

So we need another word than "theft" - and that word certainly isn't "piracy" - people that violate copyright, rarely murder people or disrupt trade routes and critical infrastructure.

I'm not saying we don't need some system of compensation if we want to continue to produce art - but just as a boycott is a very passive act of resistance, so is not paying for crippled (DRM) content. Unfortunately it doesn't seem that there's a need to prove that someone watching a copy for free would be more likely to pay for that copy than go outside and play a game of catch if the content wasn't available for copying.

forgetsusername2• 9 years ago

Prime has a boat-load of movies and tv shows available for free or pay to watch on demand.

...in the US.

adekok• 9 years ago

By the same token, when I go to say (Forbes.com), the advertisers are stealing bandwidth from me. Unless I use an adblocker, the ads use bandwidth that I pay for.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20160317/09274333934/why-a...

i.e. the advertisers entire business model is lowering their costs by pushing those costs onto me.

Then after I install an adblocker, they complain that I'm the one who's stealing. No, I'm trying to read an article. If Forbes refuses to let me read articles with an adblocker in place, I'll just go somewhere else.

And that's ignoring all of the arguments around artificial monopolies, and the perverting of the copyright system through the "immortal mouse".

IgorPartola2• 9 years ago

I will make the argument I always make when this comes up: it's not stealing it's depriving rights holders of potential revenue. But it's really not because the market value of the content is approaching $0. That is, if I can't watch an episode of Buffy for free, I won't pay for it. I just won't watch it. This the cost I'm willing to pay is exactly $0. Therefore they lose no revenue.

If you are uncomfortable with that mental gymnastics, here is a slightly less harsh approach. I currently pay for Netflix, HBO Now, Spotify, and Audible. So I am willing to pay $40-50/month for access to high quality commercial-free content on unlimited basis. But back when iTunes was the only option for streaming at something like $1/episode and $5/movie, I would not dream of it. So I guess the cost I am willing to pay is not quite $0 per each piece of content, but it's definitely not $20 each. I think a market adjustment is coming for content producers because I do believe lots of people have similar price points.

curyous• 9 years ago

It's not stealing, it's sharing. You're not depriving anyone of anything. It's not a lost sale. The TV and movie industries are making more money than they ever have, because of all the sharing.

dclowd9901• 9 years ago

"paying for value"

I'm sorry, where is the value FOR ME in paying for something that is constantly taken away from you, and where the inventory is always in flux? It's essentially pointless. It's like having a membership to a gym where they're always changing out the equipment, but never have enough variety to get a full workout.

I _do_ want to pay for these services, but they need to provide value.

hueving3• 9 years ago

Some people still believe in paying for value.

I get value from the sun, but I don't cut a check to it every month. Economics shows that on any large scale, people aren't going to pay more for something equivalent to something they get for free.

flyinghamster• 9 years ago

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.

givinguflac• 9 years ago

Thank you. People like to hate on Kodi but really it's the add-ons. People love open software, but they hate on the devs of kodi even though they kick and scream about these add ons (and even added a toggle to not allow add ons by default.) My web browser can be used for piracy, but you don't see people hating Mozilla. It's silly.

rasjani• 9 years ago

Or even other (scraped) content from legal sources/addons. My personal usecase is essentialy watching /r/video and my YouTube subscriptions from couch with a unified interface.

dkonofalski2• 9 years ago

Not only that, but my Kodi server is basically my client portfolio and my home movie repository. I can upload home movies and just tell my parents, who live on the other side of the country, to refresh Kodi and they get to see the latest videos of their grandkids. With clients, I physically go to client locations and pitch them and I can show them previous spots that I've done, in person and on my iPad, without making them publicly available and potentially violating contracts and agreements that I have.

colinramsay• 9 years ago

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.

rhino3698• 9 years ago

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.

seer• 9 years ago

It takes a little bit of time for other trackers to gain traction. Right now I think the most promising public tracker I know is idope.se, enjoy :)

elcct• 9 years ago

Why tracker? You can find most stuff using Google and various file sharing services.

Thimothy• 9 years ago

I'm just going to leave this HN submission that got into the front page a little while ago here... It's not the same as a full fledged tracker, but for that YIFI movie that everybody has seen, it's nice.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13423629

tomjen34• 9 years ago

There are plenty of vpn we don't keep any logs services that you can run a torrent through - at that point it doesn't matter how safe the tracker is.

Sunset2• 9 years ago

zooqle

frebord• 9 years ago

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.

It is no wonder that people use Kodi.

manarth2• 9 years ago

  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

Which is what Apple have tried to do with the TV app [1]. Except it doesn't include Netflix. Or Amazon [2]. And I'm sure there are plenty of others. Walled gardens eh?

[1] http://www.apple.com/newsroom/2016/10/apple-unveils-new-tv-a...

[2] http://bgr.com/2016/11/17/apple-tv-universal-app/

mustacheemperor2• 9 years ago

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.

djrogers• 9 years ago

10 minutes of ads in 5 minute increments for a 20 minute show

So just about like broadcast TV

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!

Also just like broadcast TV. The horror!!!

They have literally made streaming worse than regular TV

Sounds more like they've just foolishly brought the worst of broadcast to the web.

I'm sure you realize Hulu has an ad-free option, right? So in order to save yourself the $2-$3 it would cost you to go ad-free on hulu you've decided to just take it instead. Why? Because you deserve to get it for free? Does Hollywood simply exist to entertain you at no cost?

That's a hell of a sense of entitlement you've got yourself there kiddo...

droopyEyelids• 9 years ago

Hey! When we (educated technologists) are talking about this, let's make sure to recognize that Kodi is just a media playing customized gnu/linux.

The problem is with piracy plugins.

Let's not besmirch Kodi, it's really a shining example of successful non-commercial open source.

forgetsusername2• 9 years ago

Or buy it and wait hours to download it?

How it it streamable on Kodi, but takes so long to download from a legitimate source?

rconti2• 9 years ago

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?

parennoob• 9 years ago

Your example actually highlights the problem with cable. There is no way to get – say, only HBO, ESPN, and no CNN.

Cable would force OP to buy 37 useless channels whose content is being subsidized by people paying for the 5 channels they actually watch.

IgorPartola2• 9 years ago

There is a large number of TV shows and movies that is not available on any streaming service. There is also a large number that's available, but only from a very specific content provider. For example last I checked, Seinfeld was only available on I think TBS's website, with an awful Flash-based player and really intrusive commercials. Oh, and what was available was something like a set of 5 rotating episodes, not the whole thing. Another example is Conan the Destroyer (been on an Arnold kick lately) which as far as I saw could only be purchased on BluRay or DVD.

I am not saying the content providers owe anyone a streaming option. But grandparent is right about path of least resistance.

orclev2• 9 years ago

It's not actually. Just as one example there was a series I started watching on Netflix, got through the first season, started watching the second, and then it disappeared off Netflix. For various reasons a lot of series aren't being carried by Netflix anymore (it's about a 50/50 split as to whether Netflix or the content producers are to blame). In order to finish off the second season I had to either skip a bunch of episodes and come in on the tail end of the second season on Hulu (because they don't have anything but the most recent episodes of the current season), wait until the next season started airing and watch the full second season then, or else pay Amazon to purchase the streaming for the entire season (this was in addition to the cost of the prime membership already being paid for).

OP was right, streaming services are fractured and disjointed right now and nobody offers everything. Netflix has shifted primarily to their own content and increasingly only carries independent and foreign films and shows. Hulu is an ad packed disaster area on top of having a horrible streaming experience on current content designed to try to prop up the failing cable subscription model. Amazon is the best bet for most other content but is of course the most expensive of all the options since it isn't a proper subscription service like Netflix or Hulu but instead more closely emulates the Blockbuster Video model of old. None of the options is a really fully satisfying replacement for a cable TV subscription, but each is just good enough that it's still better than cable TV. In aggregate, the experience is definitely the best option, but it's still really frustrating (not to mention expensive) to constantly need to juggle between the three major services (and the dozens of smaller ones) in order to access the content you want when you want it.

forrestthewoods3• 9 years ago

at an agreeable price

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.

TheOneTrueKyle4• 9 years ago

Nah

da_n• 9 years ago

I've built up quite a digital collection on iTunes, all purchased more than 4 years ago when I realised my investment in content was completely locked to the iTunes platform, with no legal means to transfer the purchased content to other platforms. For some movies I paid the same price as a Blu-ray disk, for lower quality and vendor lock-in. I refuse to invest any further money into content that I am only legally allowed to access on one vendors platform, so I purchase Blu-ray versions and keep a digital backup available that can be played on vendor strategy tax unencumbered software such as Emby and Kodi. Itunes, Google Play, Amazon Movies, non of these are viable options.

CaptSpify4• 9 years ago

Then why do some people currently pirate and spend money on things?

jedikv• 9 years ago

Piracy isn't a convenience problem. It's a not wanting to spend money for things problem.

Except the likes of iTunes and Steam have shown that if you provide an affordable, reliable and convenient distribution channel, people will flock to it over the napster/kazaa/torrent alternatives.

Sir_Cmpwn2• 9 years ago

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.

jbob2000• 9 years ago

"But the people I hired can't do that, and the people who can do it don't want to work for me".

Nadya• 9 years ago

That's what the competetion offers.

To add insult to injury, the competition often delivers this experience for free or even at a loss (eg. buying the BR to rip it, re-encode it, and add subtitles)

manishsharan2• 9 years ago

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 ?

ssharp3• 9 years ago

Aren't they torrents?

manishsharan2• 9 years ago

The news article mentions Premier league and other TV networks . I am guessing that these kodi boxes are being used to consume live TV content or TV shows. A day's worth of shows in high resoution could consume upwards of 4GB. Why would anyone seed that ?

mod5• 9 years ago

No--streams, I believe. (As in, video served from a web server)

jacob019• 9 years ago

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.

pdpi• 9 years ago

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.

TorKlingberg2• 9 years ago

The question was: who is hosting the streams, and how do they make money?

zelon88• 9 years ago

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.

hellbanner• 9 years ago

"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?

eco• 9 years ago

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/

jwarren• 9 years ago

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.

SN76477• 9 years ago

As it has been said before. Piracy is a service problem. Yes, you can rent stuff via amazon but the prices are too high.

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.

Five arrests in 'fully loaded' Kodi streaming box raids

Related Stories