The XBMC thread - What it is, how it works etc...

[Captain Turdseye]

Just got on to Zem TV. In the sports section there's good quality links to all the UK sports channels.

 

https://seo-michael.co.uk/how-to-install-zemtv-for-xbmc-kodi/

[EdgarFriendly]

Best addon for the Boxing tonight?

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

 

[cloggypop]

Best addon for the Boxing tonight?

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

Try these

 

 

UK Turks says he will have it as well. Boxing can be a bugger sometimes though. Not uncommon to show all the ppv build up then go off just as the bell goes for first round. Might be worth saving a few of them as favourites before it starts in case you need to switch.

[cloggypop]

This is the updated version. No idea what's changed.

 

[EdgarFriendly]

Cheers

 

Sent from my D6503 using Tapatalk

 

 

[Furmedge]

NJM Soccer has some good streams on there for the fight. I've tried the third link which hasn't buffered once yet.

[Paco]

that spartan one is looking an email

[VladimirIlyich]

How do i update kodi on my firestick to the current version? I have everything set up nicely on version 15.2 or similar but need to update it to 16. I dont want to lose all my settings and add ons as it has taken me months to get to this stage.

[Duncan Clench]

 

That vid explains how to do it. Although I haven't actually done it yet!

[VladimirIlyich]

Will have a look at that later. Thanks mate.

[GR10 LFC]

How do i update kodi on my firestick to the current version? I have everything set up nicely on version 15.2 or similar but need to update it to 16. I dont want to lose all my settings and add ons as it has taken me months to get to this stage.

There is a Backup addons, accessed through programmes. I've backed my settings using that but haven't tried doing a restore through the same process.

[FanchesterCity]

The Kodi guys are not happy about the dodgy stream plugins as it's killing their reputation (although I find it a bit hypocritical and they are well aware that a huge percentage of their users are using Kodi to catalog and play downloaded content).

 

90% of my mates are still under the impression that their Kodi box is 100% legal (including the ability to watch the content). I've given up trying to educate them, but I with the 'dodgy' plugin authors would neaten up their UI and find a way to change services (when they are shut down) without needing to fix the plugin too. 

[cloggypop]

They are probably under the impression that streaming on their Kodi box is legal because it, erm, is.

 

http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/13/legalities_of_streamed_video_in_europe/

 

I just wish these knobheads would stop selling preloaded boxes to make a quick profit and spoil it all.

[cloggypop]

Raspberry Pi 3 is out now if anyone is after a new Kodi device. It's faster than the 2 and includes Bluetooth and Wifi. Same price as the old one and fits in the same box.

[Rick Sanchez C-137]

Might see if I can pick up a Pi 2 on the cheap. Wifi is cack anyway, and upgrading from the B+ to the 2 is already 6x the processing power.

[FanchesterCity]

They are probably under the impression that streaming on their Kodi box is legal because it, erm, is.

 

http://m.theregister.co.uk/2015/10/13/legalities_of_streamed_video_in_europe/

 

I just wish these knobheads would stop selling preloaded boxes to make a quick profit and spoil it all.

 

Not quite, it's being looked into, but it's also being misinterpreted too.

This originally came about because 'copies' of copyrighted material are held on most people's PCs either in memory, or on disk in some cached form. Courts came to the conclusion that this wasn't a breach of copyright as it was merely a technical consequence of implementation and there was no intent from any browser user or media player user to deliberate breach copyright.

 

This has now arisen again where an argument has been made that a 'stream' is a transitory means of watching and the viewer is blameless (but the broadcaster is still in breach of copyright). The European Courts are generally of the opinion that the 'stream' itself is not a breach of copyright - in the same way that browser cache isn't. They have not made a judgement on the liability of the viewer or of manufacturers.

 

People have misconstrued the judgment that the technicalities of a stream do not breach copyright with how a stream is then used by the broadcaster and viewer and facilitated by box manufacturers / configuration specialists et al.. There are two different issues in play. The 'box' suppliers want a ruling that says their boxes are legal - because they mere supply the means to watch media and aren't responsible for how that box is then used (just like a browser isn't to blame for you watching porn) - the copyright holders think differently and believe the box guys are knowingly facilitating breach of copyright.

The second issue is the end user's liability once they've bought the box. Even if the box is deemed legal, the use of it by the end user can be deemed illegal.

 

I certainly wouldn't say to friends 'it's all 100% ok, there's no problem'. I'd advise my friends that it's a very grey area, and to expect some copyright holders to make an example of a handful of end users to scare the rest. I also try to tell them that Kodi doesn't make boxes, and that Kodi isn't behind any of the dodgy streaming services, it's just provides a nice front end for plugin authors to do good and bad things with - or more accurately, for them as an end user to do good and bad things with.

 

Course, none of this would be much of an issue if the greedy fuckers at Sky and BT didn't cream their customers and didn't overpay for broadcasting rights.

 

 

This is what the European Court actually decided:

 

The judgement of the court states that: "Article 5 of Directive 2001/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2001 on the harmonisation of certain aspects of copyright and related rights in the information society must be interpreted as meaning that the copies on the user’s computer screen and the copies in the internet ‘cache’ of that computer’s hard disk, made by an end-user in the course of viewing a website, satisfy the conditions that those copies must be temporary, that they must be transient or incidental in nature and that they must constitute an integral and essential part of a technological process, as well as the conditions laid down in Article 5(5) of that directive, and that they may therefore be made without the authorisation of the copyright holders.

 

This has then been misinterpreted by a number of bloggers as 'can watch what we like when we like as long as it's a stream' - which isn't quite what the judgement was about or intend to rule on.

[cloggypop]

No. As it stands now under European law streaming is legal.

 

On 5 June 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that streaming illegal content online is legal in Europe. The Boy Genius Report weblog noted that "As long as an Internet user is streaming copyrighted content online ... it’s legal for the user, who isn’t willfully [sic] making a copy of said content. If the user only views it directly through a web browser, streaming it from a website that hosts it, he or she is apparently doing nothing wrong."[1]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_downloading_and_streaming

[FanchesterCity]

No. As it stands now under European law streaming is legal.

 

On 5 June 2014, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled that streaming illegal content online is legal in Europe. The Boy Genius Report weblog noted that "As long as an Internet user is streaming copyrighted content online ... it’s legal for the user, who isn’t willfully [sic] making a copy of said content. If the user only views it directly through a web browser, streaming it from a website that hosts it, he or she is apparently doing nothing wrong."[1]

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_aspects_of_downloading_and_streaming

 

Read the rest of the wiki article, and read the judgment I posted above.

The Boy Genius is a blogger who made those assumptions, the ECJ did not. I posted the actual ECJ ruling.

 

The judgment was on the technical aspects of streaming and found that a 'transitory' copy is legal (just as per a browser cache).

 

Now, a Dutch court can't decide if the boxes and the viewing of the material is legal or not - so it's passed it to the ECJ to decide. They have NOT made a decision on this yet! This is what everybody is waiting on.

 

NO DECISION HAS BEEN MADE (yet). The only decision on the 5th June 2014 was about the technicality of a stream and ruled it was effectively a 'cache' and a necessary copy for technical implementation. Entirely different ruling.

 

BREIN the Dutch Anti-Piracy group took a box supplier to court in Holland.BREIN claimed the boxes were illegal and the court wasn't sure so referred to the higher court, where it's still being ruled on.

 

https://torrentfreak.com/is-streaming-pirated-movies-illegal-eu-court-to-decide-151012/

[cloggypop]

The judgement is already made. As it stands streaming is legal. BREIN may be trying to change it but at this moment you are wrong and streaming is currently not an illegal activity.

[FanchesterCity]

The judgement is already made. As it stands streaming is legal. BREIN may be trying to change it but at this moment you are wrong and streaming is currently not an illegal activity.

 

You're still wrong and making the same false assumption about the ruling in 2014.

The ruling was because end users made 'transitory' copies whilst streaming, but did not need to seek the permission of the copyright holder.

 

This came about because:

 

1) The rights holder signs a deal with the BBC or Sky to allow them to offer the movie / show / event as part of their subscription package.

2) The end user signs a deal with Sky, but never directly gets permission from the copyright holder.

3) They stream their data via Sky and inadvertently have a transitory copy in memory or on disk during the stream.

 

The court ruled that this was inadvertent and a technical consequence of streaming (in a similar manner to a browser cache) and thus they did not need to seek the permission of the copyright holder. So a manufacturer / media player software or end user's transitory copy was not illegal in itself.

 

THAT is what the ruling was about!

A blogger then made the wrong assumption that was a free for all to stream what they liked (he was wrong). It was not a ruling on someone seeking a stream knowing it host copyrighted material for which they have not paid.

 

We are now at the point where the 'technical' copy is ruled legal, but not the selling of the boxes, or circumvention of the copyright holder's rights. That's still in debate.

 

http://www.lawdit.co.uk/reading-room/ecj-online-streaming

 

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2015/april/uk-court-to-ask-cjeu-for-guidance-on-copyright-rules-for-internet-retransmissions-/

[cloggypop]

This is as dull as your footy arguments and as I know what I'm talking about and you keep editing your posts I can't really be arsed reading and rereading them. The only fact that matters here for this thread is that currently streaming is NOT illegal. Will it be in the future? We don't know.

[FanchesterCity]

This is as dull as your footy arguments and as I know what I'm talking about and you keep editing your posts I can't really be arsed reading and rereading them. The only fact that matters here for this thread is that currently streaming is NOT illegal. Will it be in the future? We don't know.

 

The FULL ruling

 

http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=153302&pageIndex=0&doclang=EN&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=399092

 

You can't argue with facts - boring as they may be. You've taken the word of a blogger about the interpretation above that of the courts. The blogger chose to assume, and you've repeated the same assumptions.

Read it, and learn, then shut the fuck up. The ruling was made in favour of Meltwater because the content was already licenced by them, and the court found that their end users did NOT need to seek consent from the copyright holders directly. It's not the same situation as streaming from a source that doesn't have a licence.

 

Supreme Court provisionally concluded that, if he merely views the material on the web site, this is not infringing because it is covered by the temporary or transient copy exemption under Article 5.1 of the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC.  The Supreme Court considered that the issue was so critical that a reference should be made to the CJEU and that no final order should be given by the court until this reference was determined.

[cloggypop]

You are the one making assumptions you manc tit. Do one.

[cloggypop]

Soz for my part in the recent dullness of this thread for anybody actually looking for Kodi help.

 

I blame Captain Turdseye for mentioning it on the FF.

[Carvalho Diablo]

Legal or illegal, streaming is here to stay.

 

The technology, the hardware and the streaming will only get better, more reliable and, ultimately cheaper.