Of course you cannot show a movie you bought on disk to an entire theater, (especially if you are charging money for that.)
But what about plugins or kodi add-ons? If I want to view content that I own, (alone in my bedroom) and I want to use a kodi addon for that. Does google have the right to block that use? That is the real question. And suppose I am organizing a party in my house and I invite 20 friends, and we all gather in front of a big screen, to watch the content on a disk I legally own, is that still legal?
Ask Google. They make a little bit more money than us.
ChatGPT told me once that watching Netflix content thru 3rd party add-ons was forbidden. I will try to look-up that conversation.
Here is part of the conversation I had with chatGPT about using third party add-ons to watch Netflix.
Can you write a kodi addon that can watch Netflix?
ChatGPT
It is technically possible to write a Kodi addon that can watch Netflix, but it would be in violation of Netflixâs terms of service and could lead to legal issues. Netflix has strict policies against the use of unauthorized third-party apps and addons to access their service. They employ various measures to detect and block such attempts. Additionally, they have not authorized Kodi or any other third-party media center software to access their service. Furthermore, accessing Netflixâs content without proper licensing is considered copyright infringement, which is illegal in many countries. Therefore, it is not advisable to attempt to create such an addon and use it to watch Netflix.
Is it still illegal if you have a paid Netflix account?
ChatGPT
While having a paid Netflix account would allow you to legally access Netflixâs content, using a Kodi addon to access that content would still be a violation of Netflixâs terms of service and could lead to legal issues. Netflixâs terms of service prohibit the use of unauthorized third-party apps and addons to access their service. They also prohibit any unauthorized modification or alteration of their service. Using a Kodi addon to access Netflix would be considered an unauthorized third-party app, and would be in violation of these terms. Additionally, even if you have a paid Netflix account, using a Kodi addon to access their service could cause your account to be terminated or suspended. Itâs worth noting that Netflix is constantly working to detect and block unauthorized access to their service, and itâs possible that any Kodi addon could stop working at any time. So, while having a paid Netflix account would allow you to legally access Netflixâs content, it would not make it legal to use a Kodi addon to access the content.
User
Is there another way to watch Netflix legally?
ChatGPT
The legal way to watch Netflix is to have a paid subscription with them and access their service through their official apps or website. Netflix provides official apps for a wide range of devices, including smart TVs, game consoles, streaming devices, mobile devices, and web browsers. By using the official Netflix apps, you can access the service on your preferred device and enjoy a wide range of TV shows, movies, and other content. You can also watch Netflix on a web browser by visiting the Netflix website and logging in with your account. It is also possible to use third-party devices that are officially licensed by Netflix to access their service, such as smart TVs, streaming sticks and streaming devices from brands such as Roku, Amazon, Apple and Google. These devices provide a Netflix app, which is officially licensed by Netflix, you can use to access the service. By using the official apps or website and officially licensed devices, you can watch Netflix legally and avoid any potential legal issues.
For me that kind of policy sounds like abuse of power.
Somebody once did ask google such a question. And surprisingly google himself helped them out by showing them a method. firefox - How do I play movies on Google Play? - Ask Ubuntu
Itâs a bad idea to trust ChatGPT to tell the truth about anything. Its function is to produce responses that sound plausible, not to produce answers that are accurate.
Probably. It depends a bit on the User Agreement that you would have agreed to when you started consuming their content.
But I know, for example, that if you âbuyâ content from a streaming provider (meaning you buy the right to view it whenever you wish, as many times as you wish) you actually arenât buying the right to stream it in perpetuity, youâre only buying the right to watch it for as long as that service retains the ability to stream it. Paid-for content can be removed without warning, and thereâs nothing you can do about that.
Probably not, though itâs very unlikely theyâd bother actually suing you for it unless youâre charging for admission. If youâre making money out of it, then they might.
ChatGPT is smarter than most people think. And itâs function is more than just sounding like a human being. Throw some equations to it and there is a good chance that it may solve them correctly. Have you tried that?
Can you give any good reasons why viewing content that I own on a screen together with 20 friends at a party in my house is illegal?
Of course Google doesnât have a legal right to block content that you own. However if you purchased content from Google then it is subject to the terms of that purchase and they very well may include Google restricting it however they wish as you are purchasing a license, not the content. You would have to research the terms of your purchase.
It would be according to the laws of the country you live in but to the best of my knowledge in the United States where I live it could be technically illegal. Again, you own the disk, you donât own an unrestricted licence to the broadcast of its contents.
If you donât like the terms of a purchase then you shouldnât make that purchase. Simple as.
It is not a matter of (if I like or not), but is is right to block persons to watch content that they own.
I believe the US (or RIAA) made it illegal to change media that you own in to another media. So if you have an album on tape and move it to CD or MP3, itâs illegal because you didnât purchase it in that medium.
But we (OSMC) are not involved in that. We donât legislate that. Nothing we discuss here will ever have an impact.
This thread has gone off on quite the tangent.
We are happy to help you with OSMC queries, but negotiating how many people can watch a film in your house before being busted by the âfedsâ is out of our remit.
I hope that someday OSMC will be able to access google videos, and other services that have peoples interest.
I never expected that watching content online through a device could be this troublesome. Some 50 years ago we watched only 3 TV stations. Two of them were full of âsnowâ (weak VHF signal, and atmospheric disturbances) and there were tons of commercials. But when atmospheric circumstances cleared up you had a rock steady signal. You could enjoy the content that you were watching.
Open Solaris was not playing anything, because of licensing troubles. The user had to get the codecs to play media himself. They from solaris could not provide them. Ubuntu did not have this issue (of being unable to play media). They solved this another way by allowing a user to install third party add-ons , codecs, etc.
Iâve used ChatGPT extensively. Itâs impressive how confident it sounds when it gets things wrong, and the extent to which it doubles down on its mistakes.
I once asked it for a list of films that the actress Jenny Agutter had appeared in. Its list included a film she wasnât actually in. When asked, it was happy to elaborate on which part she had supposedly played in that film, and how the critics had responded to her performance, and also to invent a different role in the same film for the actress who actually played the part it was wrongly attributing to Jenny Agutter.
Itâs important to remember that it doesnât actually know anything at all, itâs just a sophisticated form of predictive text. You should never depend on it for anything factual.
You donât own the content. All you own is the right to stream it from that provider under conditions that are entirely determined by the provider. You have whatever rights are contained in the user agreement that you agreed to when you signed up for the service, and whatever was additionally agreed at the moment of purchase; you do not have any other rights. If you donât like the terms of the user agreement, donât use the service; no one is forcing you to.
Weâre already far enough off-topic discussing the legality of âpurchasedâ content; Iâm certainly not going to get into the morality of it.
You should enter the following into ChatGPT and see what you get:
solve x+y=90,x=2y
What we all want in the end is to enjoy our devices. Once upon a time that was easy. A Television had only some 6 knobs. Two dials one for VHF and one for UHF, three controls for vertical hold contrast and brightness and a volume knob. Things nowadays are not that easy anymore. That is why we have forums like these. To ask questions and get answers on how we may solve a problem, so we can enjoy our devices. Sometimes it is easy to get an answer, sometimes not. A next version of chatGPT may help people to solve problems. Contrary to what most online commentators say, chatGPT does more than only predictive text. The experts themselves do not agree to how it does what it does. More research in this area is needed.
If you want a box that handles your streaming services the AppleTV is a super player.
Iâd say that it is more or less what the Vero would have been if it was closed source and locked down.
But, yeah, you need more than one device to ârule them allâ, since the AppleTV doesnât do what the Vero does and the Vero doesnât do what the AppleTV does.
To my point, everything you listed above also supports HDR10. In fact, the overlap of DoVi with HDR10 is pretty much 100%. The reverse, however, is not true. Hence the âinferiorâ format has adoption at least as good as DoVi and in practical terms greatly exceeds it.
Youâre making the obvious engineering error of âPerfect is the enemy of good enough.â DoVi has advantages over HDR10, sure. Are those advantages enough to overcome the disadvantages such as licensing fees, device certification, and restrictions/obstructions to open-source usage? You may disagree but the market has spoken, and it isnât in DoViâs favor.
Existence does not imply widespread adoption, and audio is a much, much simpler type of data to deal with than video when it comes to converting it from one format to another. HDRâŚnot so much, especially when Dolby seems adamant about obstructing such things as much as it is.
Youâre quite correct. DoVi has much to recommend it on the technical front. Iâm not arguing itâs not a superior format because it is superior. However, itâs worth doing some soul searching on exactly why âthe decision not to support DVâ was necessary. Dolbyâs onerous, restrictive, expensive process is why, and HDR10âs success in market adoption on nearly anything with a power cable is a direct rebuke to that thinking. Dolby either doesnât care or doesnât understand this.
Personally, Iâm leaning towards the âdoesnât understandâ theorem. Dolby is behaving like itâs still the unchallenged king of entertainment formats. That situation is long past and is not going to return so long as less-encumbered âalmost as goodâ formats are openly and widely available. You can argue otherwise and vote with your wallet, but the overall market has already done so. DoVi is niche and will remain so until it becomes irrelevant, solely due to Dolbyâs machinations. DoVi couldâve been king, but Dolby went for the cash grab instead.
Just a reminder:
You DONâT legally own the videos with DRM you get on Netflix, Google Videos, etc. You just have a restricted allowance to the video THEY own!
Solution?
Ditching those greedy monsters who are ruining the moral in the world.
How do you propose to ditch all those greedy monsters? By the way they do not own the content they provide either. They also have to pay their fees and licenses. Should we only watch movies in theatres or on DVD or Blu-ray ?