[Karnagious]

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned.

So if the addon is general, but it allows for specific playlists to be shared, and one by the creator is targeting exclusively the illegal stuff, but the user has to enter the url to the playlist to get it to show up in the addon, and the addon only allows for urls to be entered, and doesnt distribute any itself, is it banned?

[TheGame1986]

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned. However if the intent is to provide general access but the user deliberately uses it for accessing illegal stuff then the add-on is OK (although a discussion with the author may be in order) but a request from the user for help in their access of the illegal stuff gets binned.

If the add-on is made for a legit service, but can be used to access pirated material, why would a 'discussion with the author be in order'? You literally just described the Kodi project. It's built for a legit service, but can be used to access pirated material. Should a discussion with the developers now be in order?

You can't blame an add-on author if their add-on is being abused for things out of their control.

[Ned Scott]

Was the last Pirates movie any good? I can't remember which was the last that I saw. I just remember thinking they weren't as good as the first one.

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned.

So if the addon is general, but it allows for specific playlists to be shared, and one by the creator is targeting exclusively the illegal stuff, but the user has to enter the url to the playlist to get it to show up in the addon, and the addon only allows for urls to be entered, and doesnt distribute any itself, is it banned?

I would think such an add-on would be okay. Is someone making a fuss over Pseudo TV Live again?

[Piers]

I don't see why this is endlessly discussed in multiple threads.

YouTube = service allowing people to host their own videos | Piracy not allowed | Pirated content available but often removed quickly.
I**f**** = service exclusively for pirated content | Piracy allowed | Pirated content available over multiple mirrors.

There is the key difference, one encourages piracy, the other doesn't. Just because there is pirated content on YouTube, it doesn't mean that's acceptable to list playlists of it here.

[Soulbind]

And the theme song...

[Lunatixz]

Was the last Pirates movie any good? I can't remember which was the last that I saw. I just remember thinking they weren't as good as the first one.

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned.

So if the addon is general, but it allows for specific playlists to be shared, and one by the creator is targeting exclusively the illegal stuff, but the user has to enter the url to the playlist to get it to show up in the addon, and the addon only allows for urls to be entered, and doesnt distribute any itself, is it banned?

I would think such an add-on would be okay. Is someone making a fuss over Pseudo TV Live again?

No... Actually PTVL is being submitted this week for repo approval. Barring any drama, things should go smoothly.

I just think clarity is needed! You can't finger point and label "good" and "bad" without guidelines... it's funny how hypocritical things are.

IMO if things were handled properly years ago when the piracy hammer came down... drama levels would be at a norm... three years later and its still a mess around here... well respected mods and members reduced to ban & bin overlords... sad

[Lunatixz]

Exactly this. The difference is the key.

So youtube hosting illegal videos is fine... what about a plugin that only lists the illegal youtube videos? or a youtube playlist only containing illegal links?

When does site TOS come into play?

Proxy around a sites TOS is a no no, yet all other terms of service can be broken... why is that?

BTW playing devil's advocate here...

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned. However if the intent is to provide general access but the user deliberately uses it for accessing illegal stuff then the add-on is OK (although a discussion with the author may be in order) but a request from the user for help in their access of the illegal stuff gets binned.

OMG intent... prove "intent", lol most subjective word in the dictionary.

[Lunatixz]

Personally if say intent comes in here. It the add-on is deliberately to provide illegal stuff from a general site then it's banned.

So if the addon is general, but it allows for specific playlists to be shared, and one by the creator is targeting exclusively the illegal stuff, but the user has to enter the url to the playlist to get it to show up in the addon, and the addon only allows for urls to be entered, and doesnt distribute any itself, is it banned?

[Soulbind]

Well, if an addon "advertises" illegal content deliberately in the form of "OMG, 100000000 Movies and TV Shows for free, one button access, cut tza cord TODAY" , i think that's what would be filled under intent.
For example qBitTorrent ( or other bittorrent programs) doesn't provide any link to any torrent site , nor advertise in the way described above, so it's basically okay, you can download both legal stuff like Ubuntu distributions or illegal stuff, but none of which is provided by the application (thus the lack of 'intent').

I assume the same logic applies to addons being approved or not in the Kodi repo.

[Lunatixz]

I don't see why this is endlessly discussed in multiple threads.

YouTube = service allowing people to host their own videos | Piracy not allowed | Pirated content available but often removed quickly.
I**f**** = service exclusively for pirated content | Piracy allowed | Pirated content available over multiple mirrors.

There is the key difference, one encourages piracy, the other doesn't. Just because there is pirated content on YouTube, it doesn't mean that's acceptable to list playlists of it here.

Everyone knows what is or isn't piracy, I'm talking about defining the gray area...

Youtube == Allowed plugin (no piracy)

Piracy on youtube == ?? Is kodi somehow responsible for the content on youtube?

Playing on @Karnagious post

plugin that can access a illegal video thru youtube??

plugin that lists only illegal videos provided by youtube??

user playlist containing illegal youtube links??

a plugin that can display user playlists containing illegal youtube links??

[Ragnarok]

No... Actually PTVL is being submitted this week for repo approval. Barring any drama, things should go smoothly.

I just think clarity is needed! You can't finger point and label "good" and "bad" without guidelines... it's funny how hypocritical things are.

IMO if things were handled properly years ago when the piracy hammer came down... drama levels would be at a norm... three years later and its still a mess around here... well respected mods and members reduced to ban & bin overlords... sad

Great to hear that PseudoTV Live is being submitted! I have seen first hand all of the work you've done to get it repo-ready, and I have to say it's impressive. I whole-heartedly believe that what can set Kodi apart from other solutions (Emby, Plex, etc.) are the add-ons. I'd love to see the Kodi team get behind their developers and encourage innovation.

I do think it's unfortunate that Kodi is widely viewed by the uneducated as a portal to pirated or illegal content. I guess that's the price you pay when you're open source, in some respects. The Kodi community can't police or stop developers who are actively developing add-ons for Kodi that enable the use of streaming pirated content. I can't imagine the effort that goes into educating people that Kodi does not support piracy. That must be frustrating for everyone involved, and I'm sure opportunities have been missed because of a reputation that shouldn't exist. Hopefully, that turns around!

Some of the policies need to be revised to allow inclusion of subscription-based services (like Netflix, HBO-GO, Pandora, Spotify, Sirius XM, iHeart Radio etc.) in the official Kodi repository. There's no sense in not including native support for services like that if Kodi wants to broaden their audience. Frankly, the user experience needs to be simplified from where it is today. I'm sure there's something in the works, but in my opinion it should be made a priority. That opinion isn't limited to Kodi, but extends to add-ons as well. If we had some guidelines for creating user interfaces, it might be a good way to start. Keep in mind, guidelines are not rules, but best practices for ease of navigation and use. For new users, Kodi is just too confusing to configure, and digging through forums to find add-ons is not a good way to improve that.

Innovative, easy to use, feature rich add-ons are the way to improve that. Crippling the developers ability to do things like link to a YouTube video or playlist because it might not be legal content is not a good idea. CinemaVision offers the ability to do just that, and in no way do we support piracy. We need to leave the policing of pirates up to those who are more equipped, like YouTube, and focus on the bigger picture. If the source code remains open, there will always be people using it for nefarious purposes. That unfortunately leaves the Kodi Team and the community with a choice. Do you spend all of your creative energy shutting down innovation and chasing ghosts because there is a chance that it could be construed as supporting piracy, or do you spend your creative energy moving forward, innovating and collaborating to continue to build on the most feature rich and cost effective entertainment center software available?

[Tinwarble]

There's a difference between a add-on that links to content that might have pirated material like YouTube, which has it's own piracy policies, and an add-on that links to a site that facilitates piracy.

The "facilitating" is what becomes the differentiator.

Exactly this. The difference is the key.

So youtube hosting illegal videos is fine... what about a plugin that only lists the illegal youtube videos? or a youtube playlist only containing illegal links?

When does site TOS come into play?

Proxy around a sites TOS is a no no, yet all other terms of service can be broken... why is that?

BTW playing devil's advocate here...

Again, it comes down to facilitating. YouTube doesn't facilitate illegal videos even though there maybe some illegal content that gets uploaded.

To put it to some context, the Kodi forum doesn't allow spam yet spam eventually makes it's way on here. Now it usually gets taken down fairly quickly, but it still happens. But before it can be taken down the forum mods have to know about it.

For YouTube it's the same way, yes there may be illegal content, but it's only there because it's not known about, yet. If it is known then it gets taken down.

Making this about piracy on YouTube is a false argument since it is no more a facilitator of illegal videos than the Kodi forum is a facilitator of spam.

[Lunatixz]

Making this about piracy on YouTube is a false argument since it is no more a facilitator of illegal videos than the Kodi forum is a facilitator of spam.

*cough* so are file sharing websites facilitators of illegal videos? they have policies against it, yet illegal videos still get uploaded.

The argument isn't about the sites policies but on Kodis when deciding what is banned and what isn't.

[Tinwarble]

OMG intent... prove "intent", lol most subjective word in the dictionary.

Don't really agree since intent is proven all the time. But for the sake of argument, replace "intent" with "Malice & Forethought".

Everyone knows what is or isn't piracy, I'm talking about defining the gray area...

Well, that's why it's called a "grey area", because it's undefinable.

In those cases it becomes best judgement.

"Would such an add-on under normal conditions facilitate piracy?"

[Lunatixz]

OMG intent... prove "intent", lol most subjective word in the dictionary.

Don't really agree since intent is proven all the time. But for the sake of argument, replace "intent" with "Malice & Forethought".

intent is guessed... a conclusion and consensus is drawn... but true intent is unknown unless confessed.

Everyone knows what is or isn't piracy, I'm talking about defining the gray area...

Well, that's why it's called a "grey area", because it's undefinable.

In those cases it becomes best judgement.

"Would such an add-on under normal conditions facilitate piracy?"

I agree with you, but I have to argue alternative points of view...