[trogggy]

I personally have had Intervenor status in a Canadian court. UK may be at variance, but most of Canadian law has it's roots in the UK and that system.

Your own link suggests it's not a uk thing unless you happen to be the Attorney General.
That system does not operate in the uk.

[PatK]

I don't believe the UK part of the wiki is complete, just too many instances in which Intervenor or friend of the court would be needed. If one relied on wiki's for information, that page would be endless.

[trogggy]

I don't believe the UK part of the wiki is complete, just too many instances in which Intervenor or friend of the court would be needed. If one relied on wiki's for information, that page would be endless.

I can't prove a negative Pat, but please do provide a link that mentions such an Intervenor in a uk case.
They don't exist.

[PatK]

http://lawoffice.co.uk/courts-who-is-who...vener.aspx

They offer the service in the UK but say it's a rare occurrence.

[trogggy]

http://lawoffice.co.uk/courts-who-is-who...vener.aspx

They offer the service in the UK but say it's a rare occurrence.

it's not unheard of for the government or some other public body to decide to take an interest in the proceedings and seek to intervene in them so that it can be legally represented and present argument to the court on the issues.

Not an individual, not a corporation, not a Media Centre Team. The state.
That's not anything at all like the Canadian system then, is it?

Edit: where do they say they offer the service in the uk?

[PatK]

"some other public body" can be construed as representation on various interests, the addresses & numbers scrolling across the top; don't seem to be in my neighbourhood. The map out pulls to the UK then the pin is smack dap in Leeds. Don't know why you're argumentative, over a lay point which you have zero ground. The fears others have may be unfounded, but if we have some UK contact or friends of Kodi in the area of that litigation, it might a wise move to at least talk to the crown.

[trogggy]

"some other public body" can be construed as representation on various interests, the addresses & numbers scrolling across the top; don't seem to be in my neighbourhood. The map out pulls to the UK then the pin is smack dap in Leeds. Don't know why you're argumentative, over a lay point which you have zero ground. The fears others have may be unfounded, but if we have some UK contact or friends of Kodi in the area of that litigation, it might a wise move to at least talk to the crown.

Because you're making claims that are flat-out wrong.
If I ever make an uninformed statement about Canadian law and its application feel free to put me right. I'll listen and defer to your greater familiarity rather than saying 'Hey, it's based on English law, must be the same.'

Intervenor is someone who has applied to the court to be heard on a matter. I believe this can be done by a lay person local to that court.

This is just nonsense. It's not the case. I wasn't rude when I pointed that out, so don't try to make me the bad guy.

It's not unusual for either side to call an expert witness - but that's for them to decide, not for Joe Bloggs to petition the court to have his say.

[Asphyx]

I think instead of bickering here the Devs should consult a lawyer in the UK who knows what is and is not possible.

In most cases this filing is used in lawsuits or appeals and may not apply to Criminal Proceedings which this case seems to be.
They may tell you that no action can be taken until a ruling is made by the court at which time you can challenge the ruling (or wording of) on your own without being involved in this particular case.

It's better to be safe than sorry and at least explore what legal actions you need to take and when it is best to take them.
You don't want to wait only to hear that you should have filed the paperwork a month ago and now it's too late.

You certainly aren't going to get good advice just from posts on a forum!

Afterthought here...
You know if you contacted the prosecutors of the case and told them your concerns and what your policy is, I'm sure they would LOVE to be able to enter into evidence a statement from the Kodi Dev team that states they do not support Kodi being used for Piracy as it likely helps their case against the guy.

[nickr]

Intervenors really have no place in a criminal trial, although they are sometimes used in appeal cases where there is a principle at stake that has a wide reaching effect on more than just the immediate parties. For example in a recent case in NZ the Criminal Bar Association were allowed to intervene on an appeal to th Supreme Court [1] regarding police questioning of suspects, case involving the rights of every citizen and affecting many many cases that come before the courts.

In the trial itself, it is rarely (if ever) used.

Anyway kodi's position on piracy has damn all to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case. No judge would be allow the trial to be distracted from by kodi wanting to make it's position clear. It'd be like a car manufacturer coming to a motor manslaughter case and saying "we don't support dangerous driving".

Oh and I AM a lawyer

[1] Our highest appeal court.

[Asphyx]

Intervenors really have no place in a criminal trial, although they are sometimes used in appeal cases where there is a principle at stake that has a wide reaching effect on more than just the immediate parties. For example in a recent case in NZ the Criminal Bar Association were allowed to intervene on an appeal to th Supreme Court [1] regarding police questioning of suspects, case involving the rights of every citizen and affecting many many cases that come before the courts.

It makes sense that it would NOT apply to a criminal proceeding. If it was relevant in any way one side or the other would simply call a Kodi Rep to testify instead.

Anyway kodi's position on piracy has damn all to do with the guilt or innocence of the defendant in this case. No judge would be allow the trial to be distracted from by kodi wanting to make it's position clear. It'd be like a car manufacturer coming to a motor manslaughter case and saying "we don't support dangerous driving".

Well it might show INTENT on the part of the defendant in that he did go out of his way and intentionally package the Pirate Software with Kodi.
The statement would obviously be more comprehensive in saying that Kodi does not provide the software needed to infringe copyright, that it is not part of the Kodi Software and that the Defendant had to knowingly look for and install the infringing software.

But like you said, probably not admissible until a ruling is made that seems to suggest Kodi software is itself infringing.
Then you could file to get that ruling re-worded or changed.

[trogggy]

Well it might show INTENT on the part of the defendant in that he did go out of his way and intentionally package the Pirate Software with Kodi.

I might be being a bit judgemental here, but looking at the story I'd bet a pound to a penny the only 'packaging' he did was putting them in a plastic bag.
Not that ignorance is a defence.
The boxes probably come pre-loaded from China / wherever.
It will be interesting to see what a uk court makes of it all anyway - given there are presumably no links on the box but there are add-ons that supply them.

[Asphyx]

I might be being a bit judgemental here, but looking at the story I'd bet a pound to a penny the only 'packaging' he did was putting them in a plastic bag.
Not that ignorance is a defence.
The boxes probably come pre-loaded from China / wherever.
It will be interesting to see what a uk court makes of it all anyway - given there are presumably no links on the box but there are add-ons that supply them.

Quite possible...I don't pretend to know the details of the case...
But if he advertised that the box had those capabilities then he will likely be found guilty regardless.

My personal feeling is that the Law should only be going after the distributors of the illegal content and not the viewers or software used to get it.
Viewers shouldn't be held responsible to know what content is copyrighted or not when found on the Internet.
Even if they made the mistake of accusing the Kodi product of allowing Copyright infringement it would be akin to claiming Mozilla or Google Chrome was responsible for protecting someone else's copyright.

Lets hope the system finds the right answer and leaves Kodi's name out of it.

[trogggy]

Lets hope the system finds the right answer and leaves Kodi's name out of it.

If you'd asked me yesterday I'd have agreed.
Today I genuinely don't care.

[User 182116]

I am 100% sure that he will be found guilty.

Not necessarily for the addons that allow copyright infringement because at the moment there is an EU ruling that essentially states that streaming through a browser is not currently illegal, although that current decision is coming up for review.

So the defence could be that Kodi is a form of browser and therefore escape prosecution on a technicality.

Where i believe that the prosecution will proceed and succeed (even if they have not thought of it yet) is where some of the addons with these fully loaded boxes are for access to porn, so the angle taken may be that there is a great risk of harm to children, which will then fall under a far more serious kind of offence and where he could potentially find himself placed on the sex offenders register, especially if it can be shown that any minor has ever purchased a box from his shop.

[nickr]

There is no suggestion that the defendant has been charged with anything sex/porn related.