[OnKz]

I don't live in Hull, but I was on Facebook and I came across this:
http://imgur.com/a/diBoH

Just wondering what people think about this text? Is it accurate?
Throw some opinions here guys! Personally, never seen Kodi featuring in a newspaper before.

[BobCratchett]

Another article which doesn't get the difference between the underlying software (Kodi - a video player which doesn't care what it plays), the add-ons which get the content, and the providers of the content. The software is legal. The add-ons may-or-may not be legal, and whether an individuals use of them is legal is another argument altogether (and thanks to my dear brother for completely misunderstanding this over the xmas period ). The providers are almost certainly not. The article - as so many others - fails to acknowledge the nuances between these different levels, and the legal situation of each one.

[tornicade]

Another article which doesn't get the difference between the underlying software (Kodi - a video player which doesn't care what it plays), the add-ons which get the content, and the providers of the content. The software is legal. The add-ons may-or-may not be legal, and whether an individuals use of them is legal is another argument altogether (and thanks to my dear brother for completely misunderstanding this over the xmas period ). The providers are almost certainly not. The article - as so many others - fails to acknowledge the nuances between these different levels, and the legal situation of each one.

It says specifically that boxes can come preloaded or altered to allow illegal content.

seemed like a rather fair article. in the final paragraph tit distinguished between Android boxes and preloaded boxes.


This is the part I have a problem with essentially the same article editorialized by the Plymouth herald

The boxes themselves are, effectively, legal.
But realistically, the only reason you would ever want one is it if was bought either pre-loaded or altered in order to watch PPV content, like Sky Sports or films currently in the cinema.
That, claims prosecutors, is illegal.

Read more at http://www.plymouthherald.co.uk/is-your-...gCbiJyG.99

[BobCratchett]

Another article which doesn't get the difference between the underlying software (Kodi - a video player which doesn't care what it plays), the add-ons which get the content, and the providers of the content. The software is legal. The add-ons may-or-may not be legal, and whether an individuals use of them is legal is another argument altogether (and thanks to my dear brother for completely misunderstanding this over the xmas period ). The providers are almost certainly not. The article - as so many others - fails to acknowledge the nuances between these different levels, and the legal situation of each one.

It says specifically that boxes can come preloaded or altered to allow illegal content.

seemed like a rather fair article. in the final paragraph tit distinguished between Android boxes and preloaded boxes.

And yet, to quote the final paragraph:

Code:

So are Kodi boxes still for sale?
For now, yes. Many retailers sell similar Android boxes, but they do not come pre-loaded.
Whether cases going through the courts will change remains to be seen.

Kodi boxes will always be for sale - it's only when the understanding between Kodi, the add-ons and the providers of content to these add-ons is mis-understood that this becomes a question. In terms of the Kodi foundations trademark, it may be that boxes that run Kodi (and not Kodi boxes - which are boxes that provide a 'vanilla' experience and so can call themselves Kodi boxes) hopefully will not be available in the future.

As I say, I believe there's a general misunderstanding of the difference between the software, the add-ons that run on the software and the content.

[PatK]

Any publication that doesn't use fact checkers, is just opinion ala Sensationalist National Enquirer.