[metalkettle]

Regarding TVA and those "giants". There wasn't a single takedown request by any of them, which is required by law, to remove infringed content. So this reminds me of some unlawful tactics much in a same manner to what Kim DotCom suffered.

I argue also that it is a search engine, but not in the traditional manner of type-a text-and-get-results. A user wanted to watch live channels? Fine USTVNOW completely legit lets you do that. Available via a web interface and their indigo tool. Filmon was also legit as well. Even the popular "X-o-doos" had its legit side.

How do you know there was no takedown request? If tva wanted to change themselves to a "search engine" they would have to implement a reporting system that works and that would have made the site useless. Same goes for the addons themselves. An effective reporting system would just make them useless. If they really have their legit use like you say, there is no harm in a reporting system, right?

TVA always had a dmca contact on their website FWIW and still does.

[metalkettle]

Kodi featured on today's (14/08/2017) episode of The One Show on BBC1 in the UK. Can be viewed on BBC iPlayer.

[docwra]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-Kodi.html

[TheGame1986]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-Kodi.html

Why is there such a focus on Kodi for this stuff? I'd wager that more people pirate the EPL outside of the Kodi eco-system than they do inside it. These dodgy IPTV groups usually ship with an equally dodgy Android application, and whatever content Kodi is reading via add-ons is coming from a website run and operated elsewhere, too. Why is this a Kodi issue and not an internet issue? I'll never understand.

[User 182116]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-Kodi.html

Why is there such a focus on Kodi for this stuff? I'd wager that more people pirate the EPL outside of the Kodi eco-system than they do inside it. These dodgy IPTV groups usually ship with an equally dodgy Android application, and whatever content Kodi is reading via add-ons is coming from a website run and operated elsewhere, too. Why is this a Kodi issue and not an internet issue? I'll never understand.

Such is the lack of journalistic integrity almost across the board these days.

Never let the facts get in the way of a good story has never been more apt.

[FXB78]

What's particularly poor is the line "Kodi, Perfect Player and GSE IPTV are all believed to have been blocked, although more sites are likely to be targeted in the future.". That just sums up the knowledge of the journalist right there doesn't it, none of those applications are 'sites' which provide any content whatsoever, a quick google search will tell you that.

[Karellen]

Metal Kettle call it quits

@Karellen- Link removed


I suppose we can expect a flood of posts asking for help with their non-functioning add-ons soon

[Mnementh]

I have to admit I'd never even heard of that one, guess their "users" don't do the inexplicable and come here for support.... till now probably

[docwra]

The original court case that would have set a precedent has ended up with the trader pleading guilty instead of challenging it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-41386047

[tjay260476]

from what I gather, it's still a precedent, as he has pleaded guilty, hopefully this will stop other box conmen like him selling them, as it now shows they are against the law, whether or not he pleaded guilty or innocent...

[trogggy]

from what I gather, it's still a precedent

It isn't.

[Av3nged]

In layman terms judges are egotistical so they do not like to overturn other judge’s decisions to protect their decisions from being overturned. In this case the person pled guilty so no decision made by a judge so no president set.

[tjay260476]

Ah, just re-read the article, and it was the 'prospect of one' and not 'one'....damn me reading stuff online during work hours!!! (DOH!)

My bad

makes you wonder if his lawyer told him to plead guilty, so it did not make landmark/precedent.

Didn't realise what precedent meant in legalese, now I know why I aint a lawyer

[nickr]

In layman terms judges are egotistical so they do not like to overturn other judge’s decisions to protect their decisions from being overturned.

Not quite. judges have to follow decisions set in higher courts, full stop. So if the court of appeal defines some legal term, then lower courts must follow.

decisions by courts of the same rank are persuasive only, like "2 other crown court judges have said X, but this is a developing area and I have had different legal arguments presented, so I disagree and say Y" is quite common. So while the 2 other judges have set a "precedent" - it is only persuasive on another judge of the same rank. Eventually a higher court will set them straight and create a precedent that the lower courts must follow.

In this case the person pled guilty so no decision made by a judge so no president set.

No precedent on the ingredients of the crime, but likely a precedent (in the second sense above) on sentencing level.

[Fergus]

18 month suspended jail term...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-tees-41692804