Originally Posted by mred2000:
“By the time content is on TV/online streaming, the people who create them have been paid a long time since. Most of the money at TV/streaming level is going into the service and studios pockets, at that point very little to none goes to the people who actually make these things.
Fine, an argument could go along the lines of the money going on to fund future projects but it doesn't quite work like that.
Source: I work in the production industry.”
That is all well and good perhaps for movies and certain tv shows, but we all know Kodi is massively popular for live sports and being able to access streams of Sky Sports, BT. foreign channels showing PL football and so on.
Now, a sports-mad Kodi user would use the defence of "A Sky sub is too expensive nowadays" and for a large part I am in complete agreement. However, does that justify using an IPTV/Android box to access premium sports content for free? If everybody in the country did that and Sky had zero sports customers, the obvious result would be they'd close their channels down, and the Premier League would suddenly go from being the richest and most prestigious football league in the world to one of the poorest, and it would affect the English game at all levels for years to come.
It could feasibly happen in other countries too. I think while Kodi is still "on the fringes" as it were, it's relatively harmless to sports and other media/broadcasting industries. But if it continues to grow like it has been doing this last year, then it could do more harm than good. People need paying for what they provide, it's simple as that.