Legalities surrounding KODI vs Illegally sharing copyrighted material via P2P?

Thanks for the reply. That makes sense.

I'm surprised they haven't locked up some of the folks who make the apps although I am not sure about the legality issue there.

If the app maker doesn't make a dime then they are not committing piracy. Most of the stream site folks who went to jail, made piles of cash off of their sites. I have no clue if some of the App folks are making money or if it is a hobby. If they are, then I am surprised a few haven't been rounded up and jailed.

They can't shut down Kodi unless the programmers advertise the illegal use. That is what got Grokster in trouble and that is what got Kim Dotcom in trouble with Megaupload. In the Grokster case the Judge pretty much stated they screwed themselves by advertising the copyrighted material. If they had simply kept their mouths shut and taken down material on request, Grokster and Megaupload would still be here. Just as youtube hasn't gone away even though you can still find massive piles of copyrighted info.

I love how YouTube has tons of copyright stuff and it's a non issue. I can watch every ppv Tyson fight and many sports games that 100% say not to rebroadcast or duplicate.

I don't care if they don't get in trouble, people threaten that those who "stream" exodus can be in trouble.

A guy who watches 2007 Alabama game on YouTube calls another guy "immoral" for watching a 2007 tv show on exodus

quote:

---

Well that is just false. Netflix is cranking out its own original content and a whole lot of it is really good.

---

I agree they have good content, but it if Hollywood did something close to my suggestion Netflix would have to pump out a whole lot more of it.

If you could stream Hollywood's entire collection in one spot people would jump at that.

quote:

---

I would just say use a VPN though. Nothing's gonna happen to you if you're streaming over a VPN with a no-logging policy.

---

How difficult is it to do this? I'm semi knowledgeable with basic networking such as setting up a wireless network and accessing a router's settings to secure the network.

quote:

---

Sure, laws might change to try and stop streaming, but at the moment you don't even create a copy. The folks uploading the file did the damage. I could see the current politicians in power trying to ramp up the damages but not sure it would stand up in court. 

---

You're accessing content you don't have a right to. Just because you didn't put it there makes it no less illegal to access it. Copying a file isn't the test.

quote:

---

please educate me on what content i don't 'have a right to'

---

Content you didn't pay for - pretty simple actually. Your point talks more about timeshifting and fair use because you have paid for it. Timeshifting is legal, but that certainly assumes you had the right to record it in the first place (i.e. cable subscription or because it was freely broadcast by someone authorized to) and you did the recording. You can make a "copy" for these purposes, but that certainly does not give you the right to rebroadcast it even if not for profit.

Now your premise that you paid for it, but didn't record it to make a legal copy to view later, now somehow gives you the right to use what undoubtedly is an unauthorized copy is a bit more dubious. As noted, copyright laws allows you to copy for personal purposes but you didn't do that. You are watching a copy that is not likely authorized to be rebroadcast (done so by placing on the internet) claiming a right to watch an unauthorized copy even though you didn't meet the prerequisites for fair use.

Let's assume a grocery store gives free snow cones during business hours if you buy something. You do but don't get the snow cone because you didn't have time. I break into the store after hours and start up the snow cone machine. By your logic, you could get a snow cone then because you didn't take it when offered and have an unassailable right to a snow cone. Your right to the snow cone is a temporal one with restrictions and not a permanent one to be exercised whenever and however you feel like it - just like the right to copy things for timeshifting purposes.

quote:

---

Now your premise that you paid for it, but didn't record it to make a legal copy to view later, now somehow gives you the right to use what undoubtedly is an unauthorized copy is a bit more dubious. As noted, copyright laws allows you to copy for personal purposes but you didn't do that.

---

Ok, follow along with me here. I am legally allowed to make a copy for personal use, right? Right. But, of course, I'm not physically copying the content bit by bit manually, I tell a machine to do it for me. The machine is my agent. I can also ask my wife to program the machine on my behalf, so they are both agents of mine. If I could train a parakeet to press the right buttons whenever I use an app on my phone to blink my living room lights from halfway around the world, then multiple servers and devices around the world (and the parakeet) are working on my behalf to aid me in obtaining a copy of some content for personal use. If I can use my wife, various machines, and a parakeet to help me grab a copy, why can't I enlist the help of another person? Now, the guy purposefully sending copies to everyone, I would say he's in the wrong.

Further, since I am allowed to make a copy of content for personal use, I am logically allowed to make multiple copies for personal use. If my recording device uses redundant drives for storage, then I already have two copies. When my device plays the content back, it makes yet another copy in memory. It may transcode the recording during playback, so surely I am allowed to transcode it myself for playback on various devices, right?

What if I make a backup of my personal copy to a secure, encrypted, online backup service? Over time, their storage fails and is replaced, but they have backups so eventually my "original" copy is gone and has been replaced with another copy. Is it ok for me to download that new copy even though it's not my "original" copy? Is it still an "authorized" copy? Do you see how this argument can fall apart pretty quickly?

quote:

---

Let's assume a grocery store gives free snow cones during business hours if you buy something. You do but don't get the snow cone because you didn't have time. I break into the store after hours and start up the snow cone machine. By your logic, you could get a snow cone then because you didn't take it when offered and have an unassailable right to a snow cone. Your right to the snow cone is a temporal one with restrictions and not a permanent one to be exercised whenever and however you feel like it - just like the right to copy things for timeshifting purposes.

---

This example is totally bunk, as it involves depriving someone else of their possessions. There is a reason we have words like "copyright" and "infringement", and the reason is because it's not "just like" theft.

The laws and the logic behind them are not as flawless and clear cut as you make them out to be. There is a very large grey area, and I lean toward "not guilty" in the grey, as I believe the system should.