Saturday, October 29, 2016
Kodi v17 “Krypton” Beta 5
Kodi 17 features a huge amount of work in areas like video playback, live TV and PVR/DVR, the music library, skinning and more. It features a new default skin, as well as a new default touchscreen skin, named Estuary and Estouchy, respectively. With all this work done over the months some bugs might slip through and were hoping to quickly squash the coming beta releases. The changes for this fifth beta are the result of the continuous effort from the developers, either from inside the team or outside to get v17 into final release shape. and any outside. We sure would like to thank every one involved with either development, testing or simply helping out others with question. Below is a condensed list of fixes and changes done in this beta 5 release.
Fixes done in this Beta 5:
• Fix playback of HLS streams
• Fix skin settings not loading when “reload skin” was triggered
• Fix segfault on EOF for video caused by postprocessing
• Fix possible crash on Android when other Android apps had missing icons
• Change splash screen text once per second to show it’s busy doing database and add-on upgrades instead of just static text.
• Fix missing binary add-ons like PVR and controller handling on Windows
• Add back seek to time using numeric input on video files
• Microsoft has rolled out a fix for users of the Kodi UWP version in combination with AMD videocard that had BSOD. For more information see: Blue screen with error code 0×139
Known problems
• Upgrading the skin you are currently using fails on Windows.
• Upgrading any add-on currently fails on Windows.
• Possible video freezes on Raspberry Pi and Android.
We are trying to find the cause solve these problems. Of course there are some more however these are the most noticeable ones. Remember this is still Beta software so please be patient.
For completeness here are the fixes done in previous beta
Fixes done in this Beta 4:
• Fix certain types of 16bit encoded passthrough streams on OSX
• Fix activate/deactivate on read only timers
• Fix reading interlaced modes from defaultsettings when set to none
• Fix compilation albums, last played rules and fix missing sort order rules in smartplaylists
• Fix relative seeks on video playback
• Fix info dialog for recordings on home screen
• Don’t load inputstreams on startup if they are disabled
• Fix subsequent seeks with video playback
• Explicitly check for DTS capability for making settings visible
• Add ARMv8A 64bit builds for Android
• Add GetLastModifiedDate to the webserver
• Fix playback of DVD ISO files
• Fix focus of list items in media windows (like plugins)
• Change spinners options in smartplaylist editors to a select menu
• Add workaround for AMD/ATI cards regarding interlaced content
• Fix gapless playback for music
• Fix controller on NVIDIA Shield TV not working after it when to sleep
• Fix video playback when skipping beyond end of file on mp4 videos
• Improve crashlog reporting for UWP app in Windows Store
• Export max ratings to NFO files by default
• Fix hardware decoding on some mpeg2 files and DVDs for AMD/ATI cards as their drivers aren’t that good
• Fix aspect ratio calculation for 3D modes
• Fix video playback in image slideshows
• Fix channel group change in PVR
• Fix several memory leaks
A full list can be found here
What’s new?
This round we didn’t really add new features as the focus was to further improve our code and solving possible bugs. We do have some more improvements lined up for next beta so stay tuned…….
Windows Store
In case you missed the big news some time ago, Kodi got added to the Windows Store as a Desktop Bridge UWP app. It is still the same Kodi version you are used to use, without any limitations. Although it is still possible (and always will be) to download and install Kodi from our website, it is now also possible for Windows 10 users to download and install Kodi from the Windows Store. This brings a few benefits, such as automatic updating. The Windows Store application uses the same userdata as the version from our website so you can switch between the two versions without issues. NOTE: This also means that if you are currently running Kodi v16 and want to try out the Windows Store version, your Kodi databases and add-ons will be upgraded to the v17 versions. You might want to make a backup of the userdata before! You can read the full announcement here: Kodi goes Windows Store
NOTE: Since it takes a bit of time to publish in Windows Store you might need to wait a bit till the update is available.
All in all this Beta 5 might not seem very excited but that’s how it’s supposed to be. We’re simply focusing more on stability and working out the details than keep adding bells and whistles.
Conclusion
As previously noted, this is only a small summary of all the improvements in Kodi 17. For more, see the Alpha 2 and Alpha 3 posts. Should you want to download and install this build please visit our download page. You can install these build just on top of your current Kodi installation.
• Official Kodi 17.0 development downloads (near the bottom of the page)
• LibreELEC Raspberry Pi / x86 versions can be found here
Bug reports
Please report any problems on our forum http://forum.kodi.tv and not on the release announcement as it is not a reporting or help section. Don’t forget we also have some official tablet/phone remote controls for both Android and iOS. You can find the links to them on the download page.
Donations or getting involved
Getting involved is quite easy. Simply take the plunge and start using these 17.0 Krypton builds. If you use these builds, we encourage you to report problems with these builds on our forum first and after that, if asked, submit bugs on Trac (following this guide: How to submit a bug report). Do note that we need detailed information so we can investigate the issue. We also appreciate providing support in our Forums where you can. You can of course also follow or help promote Kodi on all available social networks. Read more on the get involved page. We are always happy to receive a donation by which you show your support and appreciation, and t-shirts and Raspberry Pi cases may still be found on the sidebar for purchase. All donations and other income goes towards the XBMC foundation and are typically used for travel to attend conferences, any necessary paperwork and legal fees, purchasing necessary hardware and licenses for developers and hopefully the yearly XBMC Foundation Developers Conference.
from Kodi http://ift.tt/2eFNRPX
via IFTTT
New Legislation to Tackle Pirate Kodi Box Sellers Rejected
Accessible via a standard browser or dedicated hardware devices, pirate streams of the latest movies, TV shows, and sporting events are now watched by millions in the comfort of their own homes, or even on the move.
Copyright holders everywhere are worried but it’s perhaps most evident in the UK where police and Trading Standards officers are targeting sellers of Kodi-enabled devices that have been modified to receive pirate streams. This week, as part of the forming Digital Economy Bill, Members of Parliament have been discussing potential amendments to UK copyright law aimed at clamping down on the sale of such devices.
“Android-based IPTV boxes are being loaded with software linking thousands of streams of infringing entertainment, movie and sport content. The boxes are sold on mainstream marketplaces such as Amazon and eBay, and through Facebook,” said Labour MP Kevin Brennan.
“The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 has yet to be updated to reflect the new technology. It offers no effective remedies to copyright owners, who at present can rely only on laws that are not particularly tailored to copyright infringement.”
Brennan said that police currently need to prosecute under the Fraud Act 2006, the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, and the Serious Crime Act 2015. By amending the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, bodies such as Trading Standards would have an easier time prosecuting offenders, the MP said.
“New clause 33 would amend section 107(1) of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) to create the new offense of supply of devices primarily used to infringe copyright. It is entirely logical to amend that section, which is concerned with ‘criminal liability for…dealing with infringing articles’, but which currently focuses only on physical copies of work and on communication to the public,” Brennan explained.
“The new clause would bring trading standards offices into the picture, empowering them to make investigations and to enforce the rules on such devices under section 107(1) of the 1988 Act. To minimize the risk of new and uncertain legal tests, concepts or unintended consequences, the drafting adopts for the most part language used elsewhere in that Act.”
Support for the new clause came from the SNP’s Callum Kerr, who noted that people will continue to innovate when it comes to obtaining pirate content. Surprisingly, he also confessed that someone in Parliament actually encouraged him to buy a pirate box.
“Someone in [Parliament] recommended an IPTV box to me for my London flat because it is quite a cheap way of accessing content, but I did not follow that advice because I would not want to access any illegal content,” Kerr said.
“These boxes come pre-loaded, and there should be no pretense about it: they are designed to give people a way of avoiding paying for content that they know they should pay for. There is no excuse for that.”
Noting that the proposals for amendments to the CDPA have “a long list of supporters in the industry”, Brennan asked Matt Hancock, Minister for Digital and Culture, whether they could rely on his support too. Hancock said he understood the concerns but believes that current legislation (the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2015) can cope without having to modify the CDPA.
“This activity is already covered by criminal law under the Fraud Act 2006 and the Serious Crime Act 2015. The City of London police force is investigating cases. It seized over 500 set-top boxes earlier this year and arrested a man for fraud and IP offenses,” Hancock said.
“There is a danger in the digital world of legislating for a specific technology as opposed to legislating for the offense in a technology-neutral way. I strongly prefer the latter. As the law is already in existence in the two Acts that I mentioned, the best thing to do is to prosecute under the existing Acts, rather than try to chase a particular technology, which may well be out of date.”
Hancock told MPs that the government already has a strategy for tackling IP crime with a specific focus on dealing with the problem of IPTV and whatever technology eventually comes along to replace it. Sticking with existing legislation is the way forward, he said.
“The existing criminal offenses provide a legislative framework that is broad enough to protect our creative industries. However, I will of course keep this area under review,” he added, while asking for the new clause to be withdrawn. Brennan complied.
The fact that a request to amend the CDPA was rejected in this case raises questions over the current push to increase punishments for online copyright infringement offenses from two to ten years.
Many of the more serious online cases have also been successfully prosecuted under the Fraud Act, without any need to use the CDPA. Notably, these prosecutions were achieved without sucking in low-level offenders such as casual file-sharers.
Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.
from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2eOCFxQ
via IFTTT
Friday, October 28, 2016
Court Orders Cloudflare to Identify ‘Pirate’ Site Operators
This includes thousands of “pirate” sites which rely on the U.S. based company to keep server loads down.
In addition, Cloudflare has the added benefit that it can ‘obfuscate’ the hosting providers of these sites, offering an extra layer of anonymity.
This is an issue academic book publisher Elsevier has dealt with first hand. Last year the company filed a complaint against Sci-Hub, Libgen and Bookfi, but thus far the operators of the latter two sites remain unknown.
Since both sites used Cloudflare in the past, Elsevier tried to obtain information through the “trusted notifier” program. However, the CDN provider replied that it could not share this information for sites that are no longer active on its network.
This left Elsevier no other option than to take the matter to court. In a request filed last month, the publisher explained that a court-ordered discovery subpoena is the only option to move the case forward and identify the defendants.
In a recent order, federal Judge Robert W. Sweet agrees with that assessment.
“There is good cause to believe that absent identifying information concerning the operators of libgen.org and bookfi.org, Elsevier will be unable to advance its claims against those operators,” Judge Sweet writes.
The court has seen enough evidence to conclude that the two websites are engaging in copyright-infringing activities and concludes that a subpoena is warranted.
“Elsevier has made a substantial evidentiary showing that Defendants, through the websites libgen.org and bookfi.org, have engaged in conduct which violates Elsevier’s exclusive rights under [U.S. copyright law],” the order notes.
This means that Cloudflare will have to hand over any and all information they have that may identify these former customers.
While Cloudflare is left with no other option than to cooperate, it’s unclear to what degree they can help.
Since neither Libgen nor Bookfi are currently using Cloudflare’s services, it remains to be seen whether the company still has the site’s old IP-addresses and other identifiable information on file.
Even if the operators are identified, it’s unlikely that they will agree to future U.S. court orders, as they are likely living abroad.
After losing their previous domain names through the lawsuit, the Libgen and Bookfi websites continued to serve ‘pirated’ papers and books. Even today, they remain available through their new homes at golibgen.io and bookfi.net.
Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.
from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2e5GoZG
via IFTTT
Pirate Bay Blocking Case Heard By European Court of Justice
The case was filed by local anti-piracy outfit BREIN, which faced defeat when the Court ruled that the blockade against the popular torrent site restricted the ISPs’ entrepreneurial freedoms.
As a result, The Pirate Bay was unblocked in the Netherlands. However, BREIN wasn’t done and the anti-piracy group pressed on, taking the matter to the Supreme Court.
Acting on advice from the Advocate General, in November 2015 the Supreme Court postponed its final decision, referring key questions to the EU Court of Justice.
Yesterday, the hearing took place yesterday before the European Court of Justice (ECJ), which was asked to decide;
– Whether The Pirate Bay communicates infringing content to the public
– Whether the operator of a website communicates copyrighted works to the public when it indexes and links, but doesn’t host content itself. If not, the Court was asked to decide whether TPB can be blocked for facilitating infringement.
This is a big moment for BREIN, who will have been encouraged by a decision handed down by the ECJ in September. In that case, Playboy defeated Dutch blog GeenStijl.nl, which had deliberately published links to content it knew to be infringing, but didn’t host itself.
In the Playboy case, the ECJ found that when a person knew or ought to have known that a posted hyperlink provides access to an illegally published work, the provision of that link constitutes a communication to the public.
It further found that when hyperlinks are used for profit, those displaying such links are expected to carry out checks to ensure that the relevant works have not been illegally published. If they have been published illegally, that too represents a communication to the public.
BREIN believes these parameters can be applied to the Pirate Bay case.
“We argue that rights holders have not granted permission to distribution of their works via TPB and TPB actively and knowingly maintains a collection of infringing links (over 90% is infringing) for profit. Moreover, TPB itself makes magnet links of the torrent links. So it is infringing,” BRIEN chief Tim Kuik informs TF.
“The service providers [Ziggo/XS4All] say that TPB facilitates infringement but does not infringe itself. Their arguments seemed all over the place.
“They shamelessly said TPB is neutral and passive like Google but at the same time also agreed it is unlawful, not like Google. Also, one of their arguments to reject blocking was that it is more proportionate for BREIN to go after infringing users (their own subscribers),” Kuik adds.
But while BREIN and the ISPs battle it out, the anti-piracy group has gained support from a heavyweight ally.
“The European Commission says that it stands on the side of BREIN: both civil and criminal law can be enforced against services like TPB that facilitate infringement, even by blocking access to the site by service providers,” BREIN says.
“France and Spain also took part in the hearing and argued, contrary to the opinion of the Commission but in line with BREIN, that TPB itself is infringing. They also argued that access to TPB must be blocked, which happens in those countries already.”
The Advocate General will issue his advice on January 19, 2017, and a ruling is expected to follow about three months later.
Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.
from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2eMmGQZ
via IFTTT
UK Piracy Blocklist Expands With 123movies and Other Streaming Sites
In a new ruling, the High Court orders Sky, BT, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, Telefonica UK and Virgin to block access to over a dozen ‘pirate’ streaming sites.
The new blocking request was issued following a complaint from the Motion Picture Association Europe (MPA), which acts on behalf of several major Hollywood movie studios.
Among the new sites are the popular streaming portal 123movies.to, Genvideos.org, Hdmovieswatch.net and Spacemov.net.
The 123movies.to website is by far the largest target on the list. The site is currently the most used pirate site in the UK, and attracts millions of daily visitors around the globe.
While the looming blockade will result in a temporary reduction in traffic, 123movies is already anticipating such measures. The streaming portal currently features a message alerting people that they have an alternative .ru domain available that may help to bypass blockades.
“You can access out site through http://123movies.ru domain if the main domain is blocked by your ISP,” the alert reads.
TorrentFreak has confirmation from one of the large UK Internet providers that the court order has been granted. However, at the time of writing the new blockades have yet to be put in place by most ISPs.
As in previous cases, the latest blocking application was not seriously contested by the ISPs, which have given up on defending their position in court. As a result, it is now a mere formality for copyright holders to have a pirate site banned.
In addition, rightsholders have the freedom to add new domains without the need for a new court order if a blocked site decides to move to a new home. This will be needed, as sites such as GeekTV and Themovie4u already moved on.
Whether the present blocks will be more than a drop in the ocean has yet to be seen. There are many other streaming portals that are still available, which means that the movie studios will probably be back in court soon enough.
—
The full rundown of newly blocked sites is as follows. This list was released by a large UK ISP.
123movies.to, Geektv.is, Genvideos.org, Gowatchseries.biz, Hdmovies14.net, Hdmovieswatch.net, Themovie4u.com, Moviesub.net, Movietubenow.biz, Series-cravings.me, Spacemov.com, Streamallthis.is and Watchmovies.ms.
Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.
from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2e3v3cm
via IFTTT
Thursday, October 27, 2016
“MPAA and RIAA’s Anti-Piracy Plans Harm The Internet”
The U.S. Government uses this input for the Special 301 report, an overview of threats to various copyright industries. The recommendations usually include well-known piracy sites such as The Pirate Bay, but increasingly third-party technology providers are also added to the mix.
For example, this year the MPAA and RIAA identified domain name registrars as possible piracy facilitators. In addition, several “rogue” hosting providers were mentioned, as well as CDN provider Cloudflare.
The inclusion of these technology companies is a dangerous development according to the Internet Infrastructure Coalition (I2Coalition), which counts Google, Amazon, Verisign and Dreamhost among its members.
The I2Coalition submitted a rebuttal to the USTR this week in which they outline their concerns. They warn that if the MPAA and RIAA have their way, the entire Internet could be put at risk.
“Certain submissions favor an approach to intellectual property and infringement protections that would be harmful to the Internet infrastructure marketplace, and therefore to the Internet itself, as well as the global U.S. and global economies,” they write.
The main problem is that the entertainment industry groups “vilify” specific technologies instead of the marketplaces themselves, as the Special 301 process is supposed to do.
For example, MPAA’s characterization of Cloudflare as a service that creates “obstacles to enforcement” as it helps pirate sites to “hide,” is inappropriate according to the coalition.
“Technologies themselves cannot be bad actors. Further, a number of submissions characterize technologies and those using the technologies using unnecessarily inflammatory language.”
In addition to misguided statements about technology, I2Coalition also argues that the submissions show a misinterpretation of the obligations domain name registrars have under the Registrar Accreditation Agreement (RAA).
Ideally, the MPAA and RIAA would like domain registrars to suspend domain names that are accused of copyright infringement, but most refuse to do so without a court order. Rightfully so, according to I2Coalition.
“Both the vilification of technology, and misconstruing of the RAA have one goal in common: forcing Internet infrastructure companies to act as intermediaries in intellectual property disputes,” the group writes.
“This is not the answer to intellectual property infringement, is not the purpose of the Special 301 process, and proposals to expand the use of these companies as intermediaries are misguided.”
Using a page from the entertainment industry playbook, the technology companies stress that billions of dollars are at stake if the Government steers policies in the wrong direction.
“The Internet infrastructure industry generates more than $100 billion in annual revenue and is growing at a rate of nearly 20% per year.
“Creating regulatory and legal hurdles to the industry’s progress will not only negatively impact the architecture and viability of the global Internet, it will also impact the overall economy, which is dependent on the continued growth of the Internet infrastructure industry.”
The rebuttal and other submissions will form the basis of the U.S. Government’s Special 301 Out-of-Cycle Review of Notorious Markets, which is expected to come out later this year.
—
I2Coalition’s full submission is available here (pdf).
Source: TF, for the latest info on copyright, file-sharing, torrent sites and ANONYMOUS VPN services.
from TorrentFreak http://ift.tt/2dMflE0
via IFTTT