Kodi addon

Forums › Sky, Neon, Lightbox › Kodi addon

davidcole

6031 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#195674 29-Apr-2016 11:42

Has anyone tried looking at creating a kodi add on for LB? SO you'd still need a subscription. But with the html5 streams now, wouldn't it be possible?

But would the issue be, that you could effectively record the stream? Would this be why they'd never make one?

Previously known as psycik

Home Assistant: Gigabyte AMD A8 Brix, Home Assistant with Aeotech ZWave Controller, Raspberry PI, Wemos D1 Mini, Zwave, Shelly Humidity and Temperature sensors
Media:Chromecast v2, ATV4 4k, ATV4, HDHomeRun Dual
Server Host Plex Server 3x3TB, 4x4TB using MergerFS, Samsung 850 evo 512 GB SSD, Proxmox Server with 1xW10, 2xUbuntu 22.04 LTS, Backblaze Backups, usenetprime.com fastmail.com Sharesies Trakt.TV Sharesight

HowickDota

423 posts

Ultimate Geek

#1543977 29-Apr-2016 12:05

I think the DRM would still be a problem, netflix has used html5 for a while but there is no native kodi addon. The only way it would work is by opening a web browser I believe and giving you access to the content that way the flix2kodi addon works this way.

davidcole

6031 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1543978 29-Apr-2016 12:08

HowickDota:

I think the DRM would still be a problem, netflix has used html5 for a while but there is no native kodi addon. The only way it would work is by opening a web browser I believe and giving you access to the content that way the flix2kodi addon works this way.

So the python libraries can't implement the required DRM?

gzt

17105 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1544003 29-Apr-2016 13:03

For instance Chrome has proprietary encrypted media extensions built in. It can play Lightbox. In contrast - Chromium, the open source browser that Chrome is built on does not have encrypted media extensions and and cannot play Lightbox.

In practice it seems unlikely.

gzt

17105 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1544004 29-Apr-2016 13:05

Encrypted media extensions:

Wikipedia: EME has been highly controversial within the W3C, because it places a necessarily proprietary, closed component into what might otherwise be an entirely open and free software ecosystem.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Encrypted_Media_Extensions

It's a thing : ).

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1544183 29-Apr-2016 19:01

And, as well as being annoying, it's futile.

If you are determined, and it plays over HDMI, it can be recorded.

It's just a question of whether a person is prepared to spend the time and money on a system to do it.

IMO if vendors and studios want to reduce piracy they would be better to put effort and money into making the paid option as pleasant, uncomplicated and user friendly as possible - rather than into ineffective and irritating DRM.

radomatic

93 posts

Master Geek

#1549422 10-May-2016 17:59

JimmyH:

And, as well as being annoying, it's futile.

If you are determined, and it plays over HDMI, it can be recorded.

It's just a question of whether a person is prepared to spend the time and money on a system to do it.

IMO if vendors and studios want to reduce piracy they would be better to put effort and money into making the paid option as pleasant, uncomplicated and user friendly as possible - rather than into ineffective and irritating DRM.

That's the thing though right? It stops your average person from doing it.

I guess it's like the old "keep the honest ones honest" saying - if someone is determined enough, they will do it anyway, but this would stop the majority.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1549545 10-May-2016 21:51

radomatic:

That's the thing though right? It stops your average person from doing it.

I guess it's like the old "keep the honest ones honest" saying - if someone is determined enough, they will do it anyway, but this would stop the majority.

It doesn't even take that much determination. The kit to defeat the encryption sells on Amazon, can be easily found with a google search, and can be landed for $NZ50-60 (including shipping). Plus, it doesn't even matter if it stops most people. All it takes is one to record it and start a torrent, and it's pretty much freely available.

My point was that they would probably get a better anti-piracy payoff from investing in a smooth user experience, than a counterproductive investment in DRM that makes the user experience worse, doesn't meaningfully inhibit copying, and makes the pirated product more attractive and user-friendly than the legit product.

Reportedly, some of the biggest success in reducing piracy has been via Netflix and Spotify etc (which make legit product available easily, affordably and conveniently), and these services have done far more than aggressive DRM and litigation in this regard.