Landmark Kodi case goes to court
Brian Thompson appeared at Teeside Crown Court today, entering a Not Guilty plea to two charges of 'selling equipment designed to circumvent technological measures', meaning he will go to trial in what's sure to be a keenly monitored landmark legal proceeding in the war against piracy and illegal media streaming.
So what does it all mean? The charges are Intellectual Property offences under the Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 and basically refer to anyone who manufactures or supplies a device or service designed to get around copyright protection.
Mr. Thompson, a shopkeeper from Middlesbrough, is accused of selling "fully loaded" Kodi boxes, modified with software that allowed users to watch pirated content. The trial is due to start in May and has been brought about by Middlesbrough Council after Trading Standards officers raided Mr Thompson's shop in March.
Mr. Thompson previously had this to say after his first court appearance in September: "These boxes are available from all over the place, not just me, but it's the downloading of software to watch channels that is apparently causing the problem. If I am found guilty and the court rules that I am breaking the law selling these boxes, I want to know what that means for people buying and selling mobile phones or laptops because the software is available for all of them."
So what is Kodi, what are these boxes, and what are the legal implications?
In essence Kodi, formerly known as XBMC, is simply a free media player; it's a piece of software that plays video and audio files. It can play most streaming media from the internet such as videos, music and podcasts, and can play most digital media files from local and network storage locations. It's available for multiple operating systems and devices and gives users some substantial customisation options, with a variety of skins to change its visual appearance and various plug-ins that allow access to streaming media content via third-party online services such as Amazon Prime, YouTube, Spotify, Crackle, Pandora Internet Radio and Rhapsody. Kodi also has the ability to receive live television and can show an electronic program guide (EPG) as you watch, similar to what you would get on a Digital TV. Kodi can even record live video streams, including live TV, to a permanent storage device, much like you can do with a Virgin TiVo or Sky Plus box.
Designed originally as a media player application for the Xbox Games Console, it has since been ported to Android, Linux, BSD, MacOS, iOS, and Microsoft Windows-based operating systems. There is an official standalone version of it known as Kodibuntu which essentially runs as it's own lightweight operating system for use on Home Theatre PC's or hardware media players and due to it's open-source nature, modified versions of Kodi have been used as a software appliance in a variety of hardware applications such as Smart TVs, set-top boxes, digital signage, hotel TV systems, network connected media players and embedded systems.​
Kodi is far from unique. There are many applications like it that do the same sort of thing and have been adapted for the same purposes. In the last few years there's been a rising demand for software media players bundled with an Android or Linux operating system and suitable plugins onto a small bit of hardware similar to a Digital/Satellite set-top box which can then be plugged into a TV or Monitor and connected to the internet to allow for a streamlined platform from which to play both local and streamed media. Basically they turn your connected screen into a one-stop media centre where you can access any type of media from anywhere on the planet. It's essentially just the same as using a computer or a PlayStation or Xbox, but with everything in one easy-to-navigate screen, with a user-friendly layout that lets you source media with only a couple of simple clicks instead of via many different windows and text boxes.
Now, if these little media boxes were only used to play local media files for which the end-user actually owned the rights and/or stream media from services to which they have a valid subscription, there would be no problem. But of course part of the appeal of these boxes to many people who buy them is actually the fact that by way of the pre-installed plugins and add-ons or even some fairly easy self-modification, one can access illegal copies of videos and songs, as well as access streaming services without a subscription. Whilst Kodi and all other similar software developers have not designed their software for these purposes, do not actively support or encourage the use of illegal media, and in fact enforce DRM protection/encryption which prevents items from Itunes Store, MSN Music and similar markets from being played, they essentially can't do anything to prevent the suppliers and end-users from using the software for the unintended purposes that these boxes are geared towards...
As one can imagine, there's a lot of demand for some sort of crackdown on these devices, not just from legal and regulatory bodies but from artists, studios, labels and the multitude of victims in various positions in the film and music industry that suffer anytime copyrights are infringed. This case certainly represents a big step forwards for rights-holders. It's the first of it's kind in the UK and it may even be the first in the world. It will certainly be interesting to see how the judge decides to set the respective boundaries of culpability with regards to the making, distributing and use of these devices and to see how harsh of a sentence is imposed, if any, but on the other hand it does beg the question; what can the people in power do about piracy moving forwards? Making an example of anyone unlucky enough to be caught red-handed at the centre of a contemporary hot-topic is one thing, but it doesn't make it any harder for others to keep on offending in the same manner.
Of course it's not easy to tackle, not an issue of this magnitude- not any issue that thrives off the prevalence of modern technology. The world-wide web is incredibly hard to police, we've seen evidence of that in the last 10-15 years with the fight against online piracy. Right when the authorities seem to be making some sort of progress into shutting down one route, another bunch of exploits are revealed. One site is closed, ten more spring up, an ISP starts blacklisting domains, and users simply hop onto a proxy. It's great in one sense, the sheer scope of instant on-demand access we have, but from the point of view of those who actually rely on making money off the content we consume, it's a scary world indeed.
The growth of the web had a positive change on how easy it was to access the stuff we wanted and helped expand the reach of artists, especially those who were somewhat unique and didn't follow the mainstream trends, letting them get their work out into the world on a scale that was once reserved only for those lucky few who managed to somehow strike the right balance between raw talent, solid motivation, financial backing and influential contacts, but at the same time the unauthorised sharing of artists' work that at first seemed to give them a helping hand, then steadily became such an epidemic that people were forced to adapt and capitalise on the technological trend or else be left behind to die. Those who didn't move fast enough to digitise their content and shift their market online ended up losing out big time and in many cases went out of business.
Much like the previous wave of piracy that caused the music and film companies to go digital and start streaming in order to keep up, I think that if these 'fully-loaded' boxes continue impacting the business to the point that the big companies start missing out on serious revenue, the only answer will be to somehow go head on into direct competition with the set-top pirates. As the old saying goes: if you can't beat 'em, join 'em...
