[SebasMiles]

Has anyone thought about taking a proactive approach about those youtube channels sponsoring item sales under the kodi name and pirated content?
It seems that downvoting makes a significant impact on youtube, what about a post on a registered only forum where people can submit questionable videos and then if community agrees its shady then have everyone who wants go in and downvote it?


PS. About DRM I think you guys are doing a good job. Enabling other features to provide a better experience is great. I trust you guys and I am sure if you guys suspect anything fishy with the DRM that you would disable or inform the community so I have nothing to worry. Keep up the good work and thanks for continuing to build kodi.

[ashlar]

I personally don't have anything against Kodi supporting companies that opt to have their content "protected" by DRM.

It would be an option. Nothing more.

[ashlar]

Which we're pretty much fine with.

Hrmm... my previous message notwithstanding, I have to say that if all the work would end up allowing for just 720p content to be streamed, I don't think it would be time well spent.

Already today the majority of TVs are 1080p. In the next few years that will switch to 4K. Having 720p content it's not a major selling point nowadays. Do you think it will be worth the overall hassle?

[natethomas]

Which we're pretty much fine with.

Hrmm... my previous message notwithstanding, I have to say that if all the work would end up allowing for just 720p content to be streamed, I don't think it would be time well spent.

Already today the majority of TVs are 1080p. In the next few years that will switch to 4K. Having 720p content it's not a major selling point nowadays. Do you think it will be worth the overall hassle?

hrug: Who knows. For the people we are dealing with, crappy screeners and cams are sometimes good enough. It might not be the best for the careful video curator, but I don't really think that's who we're going after with this.

[kimkl]

Have only read the first page, but i agree on that ofc Kodi shoul use some or better support every DRM stands for (damn ridiculous mess)
out there because once the rest of the planet get in Gear and follow the Danish example and stream everything and have your TV IC Phone running through a single piece of glass, ohh better explain before someone yells RUBBISH!!!! i mean Denmark has almost fully made sure that every Dane has Fiber Optics, i am sure that perhaps only a few older people are still using the phone line, cr... BACK on track

As i was saying my providers of TV Internet and phone all goes via fiber optic cable and i am able to stream "legal 1080p" content using the internet and ofc its protected like Donald Trumps, Daughters vi.. you get the point yea get on board kodi would be nice


WOMAN get my Rifle "duck season came early this year" ""BLAM""##¤¤ (RiP)
"update"
There are no older people left who still use the old phone line, for everything, we are all using fiber

[kimkl]

This is what my provider uses for IC streaming and viewing, info from 2006, it fully supports the latest DRM out there, BUT
Like everything else there are downsides, currently only chrome and ie are working at my providers web tv portal FF and edge no longer works due to change in support for "everything"

I also have C-more web tv, and again DRM and only works with Edge, no FF no IE, no Chrome.
So cons and pros with what you decide kodi, i am piss... no let me rephrase i am "unhappy" that i can not use Kodi for viewing my IPTV so i would very much like to see kodi evolve, and it would make me more The End
I would Donate regular if Kodi evolve in the right direction, ofc i donate as often as i can afford it now so was just blowing smoke

Key Features of ViewRightTM PC Player

Enables Standard Definition and High Definition MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 content decode and display
Supports all trick play modes and functions available from major VOD server systems.
Designed to be comprehensively branded to match operator and system requirements, including interface language and run-time "skinning".
Rapidly integrates with major middleware systems to offer dynamic program guide information for multicast channels together with library browsing and purchase support for VOD content.
Provides automatic network update functions for decryption and watermarking that minimize potential for theft of service or analog signal piracy.
Fully supports Verimatrix’s patent-pending GeoAuthenticationTM and QuantumIDTM clone detection technologies.

[h.udo]

@kimkl, please refrain from posting walls of text vaguely related to the subject.

Thx!

[Gregoire]

Which we're pretty much fine with.

Hrmm... my previous message notwithstanding, I have to say that if all the work would end up allowing for just 720p content to be streamed, I don't think it would be time well spent.

Already today the majority of TVs are 1080p. In the next few years that will switch to 4K. Having 720p content it's not a major selling point nowadays. Do you think it will be worth the overall hassle?

hrug: Who knows. For the people we are dealing with, crappy screeners and cams are sometimes good enough. It might not be the best for the careful video curator, but I don't really think that's who we're going after with this.

Really? That's actually quite disappointing to hear because I'd like to watch at the best possible quality available and be able to play it too.
Anyways, crappy quality can also be played on 4k tv's with no extra effort. Why not aim higher?

[natethomas]

Why not aim higher?

Higher would be nice, and where possible we probably will, but we're extremely limited by what we can accomplish from a licensing perspective.

[asplundj]

Hrmm... my previous message notwithstanding, I have to say that if all the work would end up allowing for just 720p content to be streamed, I don't think it would be time well spent.

Already today the majority of TVs are 1080p. In the next few years that will switch to 4K. Having 720p content it's not a major selling point nowadays. Do you think it will be worth the overall hassle?

hrug: Who knows. For the people we are dealing with, crappy screeners and cams are sometimes good enough. It might not be the best for the careful video curator, but I don't really think that's who we're going after with this.

Really? That's actually quite disappointing to hear because I'd like to watch at the best possible quality available and be able to play it too.
Anyways, crappy quality can also be played on 4k tv's with no extra effort. Why not aim higher?

A lot of people is perfectly fine with watching DVDs. I think being limited to 720p is far better than not being able to watch certain content at all.

[bam80]

Imho, using the same aproach as Firefox should be fine.

That's pretty much what we already do where the addon Inputstream Adaptive is the sandbox that hooks into the installed CDM which at the moment comes via Chrome Widevine.

If you take a look at the situation right now, this is exactly the thing people are doing (well, with people I mean libdev who did the inputstream.adaptive binary addon). Take what it´s there on Android or rely on the users to link the widevine decrypter/decoder library from their browsers.

The problem with this is, if users are doing this, they are violating the Widevine License from Google, which not only forbids distributing/copying/linking, but also the usage outside of Chrome (if you´re not a licensed partner).

@jjd-uk, does it mean that such addons are not quite legal for now?

[jjd-uk]

My understanding is similar to asciidisco, that linking to Widevine from outside Chrome requires a License from Goggle, so currently those add-ons using Widevine via Inputstream are breaking the Terms of Service (TOS) which is the contract you agree to when downloading Chrome, so if anything it is a civil matter (contract law) rather than criminal (where criminal is normally what we refer to as illegal). However as civil proceedings such as takedown notices may come from from violating the TOS, this is why you won't find these add-ons in the official repo or any support threads on this forum.

In theory we could apply for a License, however whether we would get a License if being used to access Netflix, Amazon etc would be not be certain.

[bam80]

Thanks jjd-uk.

Imho, using the same aproach as Firefox should be fine.

That's pretty much what we already do where the addon Inputstream Adaptive is the sandbox that hooks into the installed CDM which at the moment comes via Chrome Widevine.

Can Inputstream Adaptive really act as the sandbox which protects us from tracking, etc. from CDM side? Don't we need to make some sort of such sandbox additionally?

[jjd-uk]

This isn't my area of technical expertise so I'm not sure what exactly you are asking.

[natethomas]

Thanks jjd-uk.

Imho, using the same aproach as Firefox should be fine.

That's pretty much what we already do where the addon Inputstream Adaptive is the sandbox that hooks into the installed CDM which at the moment comes via Chrome Widevine.

Can Inputstream Adaptive really act as the sandbox which protects us from tracking, etc. from CDM side? Don't we need to make some sort of such sandbox additionally?

If you use an addon like Netflix, I'm fairly certain Netflix is going to track your usage of their content. No sandboxing will stop that. Or are you asking something different?