[jmh2002]

You both miss the important points clearly noted in the article. It's very clear why the decision (and in general other similar decisions around the world) was made:

- all sold devices that came pre-configured to receive content that customers would otherwise have had to pay for.

- The plaintiffs found that the devices not only provided access to their content for free but that the sellers advertised their products as a way to avoid paying bills.

- “The devices marketed, sold and programmed by the Defendants enable consumers to obtain unauthorized access to content for which the Plaintiffs own the copyright,” Judge Daniele Tremblay-Lamer wrote in her order.

- Turning the box-sellers’ marketing material against them, the Court noted that they’d advertised their devices as providing a way to access free content and avoid paying cable bills.

This clearly differs from a browser, a computer, a cell phone, Google, Microsoft, or even the Kodi software itself, since while all of those can be used for similar purposes they are not specifically designed, marketed, advertised, or sold to do this.

This decision is not really even about Kodi (as a browser or otherwise), or about the hardware devices themselves. It is about people/entities configuring such devices and software specifically to obtain unauthorised content and then marketing, selling, and profiting from this.

Simple reading and understanding makes this very clear.