Login at Kodi Home

**Tinwarble** · 2016-01-21, 01:02

(2016-01-21, 00:52)Lunatixz Wrote: *cough* so are file sharing websites facilitators of illegal videos? they have policies against it, yet illegal videos still get uploaded.

The argument isn't about the sites policies but on Kodis when deciding what is banned and what isn't.

And that's part of the consideration. Does the site itself enforce policies against piracy? You're argument becomes "How good are they at enforcing piracy policies".

It's not about whether a site might have pirated content, that can happen on any site were people can upload content, it's about whether under normal conditions would that pirated content be allowed.

nickr · 2016-01-21, 01:03

Intent is proved all the time in court. Of course a judge or jury cannot get inside the defendant's head at the time of an alleged crime, so intent must be inferred from actions.

EG a jury is often told by a prosecutor "The evidence of three reliable independent witnesses shows that defendant jumped on the complainant's head five times while wearing working boots, and then kicked him ten times in the ribs. You should infer from those facts that he must have intended serious harm".

(IAAL).

**Lunatixz** · 2016-01-21, 01:05

(2016-01-21, 01:03)nickr Wrote: Intent is proved all the time in court. Of course a judge or jury cannot get inside the defendant's head at the time of an alleged crime, so intent must be inferred from actions.

EG a jury is often told by a prosecutor "The evidence of three reliable independent witnesses shows that defendant jumped on the complainant's head five times while wearing working boots, and then kicked him ten times in the ribs. You should infer from those facts that he must have intended serious harm".

(IAAL).

(2016-01-21, 00:56)Tinwarble Wrote:
(2016-01-20, 23:45)Lunatixz Wrote: OMG intent... prove "intent", lol most subjective word in the dictionary.

Don't really agree since intent is proven all the time. But for the sake of argument, replace "intent" with "Malice & Forethought".

intent is guessed... a conclusion and consensus is drawn... but true intent is unknown unless confessed.

cd2022 · 2016-01-21, 02:48

(2016-01-21, 01:03)nickr Wrote: Intent is proved all the time in court. Of course a judge or jury cannot get inside the defendant's head at the time of an alleged crime, so intent must be inferred from actions.

EG a jury is often told by a prosecutor "The evidence of three reliable independent witnesses shows that defendant jumped on the complainant's head five times while wearing working boots, and then kicked him ten times in the ribs. You should infer from those facts that he must have intended serious harm".

(IAAL).

Defendant intended to teach complainant a lesson, any serious harm is not willful.

**Tinwarble** · 2016-01-21, 03:00

(2016-01-21, 02:48)cd2022 Wrote:
(2016-01-21, 01:03)nickr Wrote: Intent is proved all the time in court. Of course a judge or jury cannot get inside the defendant's head at the time of an alleged crime, so intent must be inferred from actions.

EG a jury is often told by a prosecutor "The evidence of three reliable independent witnesses shows that defendant jumped on the complainant's head five times while wearing working boots, and then kicked him ten times in the ribs. You should infer from those facts that he must have intended serious harm".

(IAAL).

Defendant intended to teach complainant a lesson, any serious harm is not willful.

Quote:In criminal law, intent is one of three general classes of mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to strict liability crime. A more formal, generally-synonymous legal term is scienter: intent or knowledge of wrongdoing.

Intent is defined in R v Mohan as "the decision to bring about a prohibited consequence."

But this is devolving into defining a single word, let's stay on topic please.

Piers · (This post was last modified: 2016-01-21, 07:48 by Piers.)

Why is this continuing? A person knows whether or not they're watching content illegally. If they don't, they really shouldn't own a computer.

MrMC · 2016-01-21, 19:30

simple, people just love to talk Smile

**jjd-uk** · 2016-01-21, 20:04

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnHQp2uk...u.be&t=54s Big Grin

**Lunatixz** · 2016-01-21, 20:36

(2016-01-21, 20:04)jjd-uk Wrote: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnHQp2uk...u.be&t=54s

Lmfao

**da-anda** · (This post was last modified: 2016-01-21, 20:44 by da-anda.)

(2016-01-21, 07:47)Piers Wrote: Why is this continuing? A person knows whether or not they're watching content illegally. If they don't, they really shouldn't own a computer.

Some reactions of users seeking for help with add-ons providing pirated content show that they actually don't know. Sad fact. They think they bought the box on Amazon, so everything is good. Only people that install these add-ons on their own likely now, but I also doubt that as I have no faith in the intelligence of humanity or average common sense.

MrMC · 2016-01-21, 21:55

Nuf said

kyle84 · (This post was last modified: 2016-01-22, 22:39 by kyle84.)

~~Ned Scott~~ · 2016-01-22, 17:18

(2016-01-21, 07:47)Piers Wrote: Why is this continuing? A person knows whether or not they're watching content illegally. If they don't, they really shouldn't own a computer.

It's a discussion board. People discuss things. I'm not sure why some people are bothered by this, or why some other people feel the need to shitpost insulting images, but whatever floats their boat.

**Lunatixz** · 2016-01-22, 17:23

(2016-01-22, 17:18)Ned Scott Wrote:
(2016-01-21, 07:47)Piers Wrote: Why is this continuing? A person knows whether or not they're watching content illegally. If they don't, they really shouldn't own a computer.

It's a discussion board. People discuss things. I'm not sure why some people are bothered by this, or why some other people feel the need to shitpost insulting images, but whatever floats their boat.

I enjoy reading differing opinions... such a thin line we walk, ppl overreact to what is or isn't piracy... Look deep enough and it's all sketchy.