Kodi and the Firestick have perfectly valid and legal uses..

I use my kodi to view my ripped movies and music files, it saves me having to have a separate player and go to the trouble of finding which film to watch and then retrieving it and putting it in a player.

I also used to use kodi for a to tuner card to watch and record the tv

Those weren't the only subjects under discussion in the OP...

At the end of the day it's up to the mods and site management, but I'll say this and then hold my peace.

Yes this is the technology sub-forum but does that mean that it's a suitable place to discuss such things, surely if someone wanted to find such information there are much more appropriate forums? This is, after all, a forum primarily about the cars, personally I feel that repeated threads on un-related and especially dubious subjects have very little reason for being here.

kodi is a streaming platform amd wookie is a build. There are hundreds of free streaming sites on the internet and free channels available. Not all are illegal to use.
If someone chooses to access PPV tv using the device , that is their decision. I do not suggest that you use The wookie build and kodi to access PPV tv illegally nor do wookie or KODI accept resposibility if anyone chooses to use there software to access PPV tv.
There are of course other builds available to use and they do not accept responsibility either

Kodi is extensible software and there are many unapproved addons and addon repositories, and until recently this wasn't a huge problem, as mostly addons added features etc to Kodi of a nature that was completely above board. Reasons for not being in the approved repositories are many and not solely confined to dubious legality.


Wookie is not a build of Kodi. What Wookie is, is a bundle of addons for Kodi, very few (if any) of which are Kodi approved by the Kodi dev community. Many of which e.g. Navi-X, Phoenix etc catalogue and search for content on sites that are hosted beyond the legal reach of the copyright holders of the material. The sites are mostly hosted in the former eastern bloc and countries without legal agreements with the countries in which the content in generated - i.e. content mostly produced by the USA. The sole purpose of Wookie and other similar so-called 'builds' is to purely to enable the viewing of content which would otherwise require some form of subscription or payment (PPV). The only reason for someone to install Wookie into Kodi would be to view PPV content without payment.

As far as repsonsibility goes. Kodi is HTPC software and in itself provides no access to PPTV for free. Wookie on the other hand leverages the power of Kodi as a presentation platform along with copyright infringing websites to make the viewing of PPTV for free easy for the end user. Of course those people putting Wookie together will not accept responsibility. Who will? The copyright holders can't pursue websites outside of jurisdictions to which they can reach. They can (and have) however pursue(d) individual users of those services when those users are within reachable jurisdictions. True they only go after an extremely small percentage of users but it's a risk for the end user all the same.

What I have trouble with is why someone would start pushing a 'how to' to this site completely unasked? Nobody said 'I've got problem how can I install Kodi, and then make it so I can watch shows from subscription TV channels for free?' and if they did would the site management be OK with that getting an answer?

Would it be ok if I posted information on how to (for instance) fool the fuel pump at the forecourt or how to bypass your electricity meter? Or how to break into and drive away an MG ZT or rover 75 without a key? No, I don't think it would. Even if those things are 'easily' findable for those willing to search for the information.

Well why would you suggest installing the 'wookie build' into Kodi then? that is all it is for! Sure there may be some perfectly above board content somewhere in there like popcorn-mix etc... (out of copyright movies) but that is hardly the reason for it's existence.

So with regards to post #15 ( explaining it very well indeed :xmas-smiley-008:) I think this thread should be wiped and closed.
I think it is absolutely unfair that I pay £92 a month to Sky TV and here there are discussions of how to view everything that I and others pay for honestly.
Ken.

I don't know or care what that was all about.
Keep the thread on topic, think before you post and if you cannot post constructively then don't bother pressing submit

I didn't know that, everyone i know that has one uses it to watch sky for free.

How many apps/programs can you install to get free movies and what is the best media to add them on ? could this be done with Chrome-cast for instance ?
Ken.

I would agree KODI is in general used by the majority to watch programmes that they would normally have to pay for. No this in the eyes of the law does not make the viewing of such programmes correct. But that is down to the individual using the applications and not to the application itself.

KODI can be used to view channels from abroad, or 'free' channels, not every single user is breaking the law and to suggest such is wrong, in my opinion. My daughter in law originates from the Republic of Georgia, and the ability to access Channels from Georgia is virtually impossible other than through these applications, none of the channels she accesses are available through SKY or Virgin etc, this allows her to keep up to date with current affairs in er native language, so does this make what she does wrong?

All I am saying is that these applications have a place in society, if used in compliance with the law.

I do not believe the thread to be inappropriate, it is technology based.