[max_rebo]

I am new to Kodi, I get the fact Kodi is not the bad guy here so this isn't another kodi bashing thread. I like to do the right thing and I am a fan of the Arts, I believe Artists who work hard to build something should get recognised for that financially. I get that Kodi is just a front end and the likes of Exodus and Phoenix etc are the ones who provide the movie content (for example). I am interested in a) how these providers get their content, and b) if they give any $$royalties back to the movie makers/Artists every time someone streams one of their films via Kodi??

p.s. I'm not the FBI, I am just a movie fan who wants Kodi to survive, and also wants the movie makers to get paid so everyone wins!!!

[DarrenHill]

They don't reimburse at all - they use pirated illegal sources, hence why we don't allow discussions of them here.

Content will be rips of press preview/review DVDs and that kind of stuff, or at the lowest end some monkey with a camera taking a movie of a movie. It's the normal torrent-style piracy mechanism that have been around for years, with those add-ons just offering a linkage and front-end to get them into Kodi (unfortunately).

[max_rebo]

ok that's what I suspected. That's a shame.

No such thing as a free lunch I guess!!

M

[PatK]

There is many legitimate web sites that offer videos that are free to look, in the public domain, or copyright has fallen etc. The add-ons within Kodi's official repository, have been vetted. Looking at streaming videos on open legitimate web sites, with a web browser is desirable from the web sites point of view.

The web site generally makes it's money (if not a public service supported by tax dollars e.g as in Canada), with ad click through, web page advertisements, donations 'like the Kodi forum', or just meta-data to sell from IP addresses that are visiting for content offered. Many people run ad-blockers in their browser to circumvent this and some web sites are getting picky and insist you disable your ad-blocker. You need to watch vigilantly the sites you connect, not all have the values Kodi tries to live up to.

There are web sites offering legal payed access to copyright material, e.g. Apple videos, Netflix, Hulu and most providers are all creating their own iptv pay systems, all claiming to have financial agreements.

Kodi's open sourced nature has made it the target in many ways of those who wish to financially gain from the hard work of others. I see geo locking in the same light, nothing comes back to the content providers, it's about market control and greed.

For streaming videos, I see Kodi as just a customized web browser with features.

[Lunatixz]

There is many legitimate web sites that offer videos that are free to look, in the public domain, or copyright has fallen etc. The add-ons within Kodi's official repository, have been vetted. Looking at streaming videos on open legitimate web sites, with a web browser is desirable from the web sites point of view.

In actuality many of the "vetted' addons break host site terms of service agreements, the idea that "just because it's in Kodis repo it's 100% legal" is simply not true... most addons fall into a undefined gray area, knowingly breaking TOS while making use of freely obtainable media. Just because it's available free on a website does not give you licence to distribute it.

[Ned Scott]

There is a lot of debate about if a website's ToS is a legal contract or not, and even if so, if that falls under copyright law. Someone could probably make a TOS requirement that says you have to watch a video while standing on one foot, and I doubt any court would consider that a legal requirement.

The bottom line is, the videos copies being accessed in the first place are legal. The website hosting the video copies is considered the distribution point, rather than Kodi.

IMO, this is no worse than someone skipping the unskippable copyright warning on a DVD and/or having an ad-blocker.

[Lunatixz]

TOS isn't a legal contract, but it is enforceable... its all debatable.

The bottom line is, the videos copies being accessed in the first place are legal. The website hosting the video copies is considered the distribution point, rather than Kodi.

Yes, legal for that site to distribute, but if the tos states you can't redistribute or bypass certain website blocks or requirements then it becomes illegal.

[PatK]

TOS isn't a legal contract, but it is enforceable... its all debatable.

The bottom line is, the videos copies being accessed in the first place are legal. The website hosting the video copies is considered the distribution point, rather than Kodi.

Yes, legal for that site to distribute, but if the tos states you can't redistribute or bypass certain website blocks or requirements then it becomes illegal.

In that case Kodi is merely the web browser, if they didn't want viewers, don't put it online. Kodi is not re-distributing (and I wish I didn't leave a message about this). When visiting a web site with a browser, who reads the TOS, sheesh... any judge would toss the TOS, is there any add-ons in the official repository that a judgement against it? Even I can answer that...NO.. until there is a judgement in that regard this is not illegal. The ad-blockers are fighting the good battle, to make mince meat out of these web toss agreements, perhaps we'll see what comes of that.

American copyright law is not international atm but perhaps the TTP will change that.

[cd2022]

You're missing the point raised by Lunatix, if say for example the Youtube TOS say you can view but can not redistribute then the Youtube add on/plug in violates the TOS. Youtube allows you to view its videos on the web so it can sell ads vs getting nothing when you used plug-in.

[Lunatixz]

TOS isn't a legal contract, but it is enforceable... its all debatable.

The bottom line is, the videos copies being accessed in the first place are legal. The website hosting the video copies is considered the distribution point, rather than Kodi.

Yes, legal for that site to distribute, but if the tos states you can't redistribute or bypass certain website blocks or requirements then it becomes illegal.

In that case Kodi is merely the web browser, if they didn't want viewers, don't put it online. Kodi is not re-distributing (and I wish I didn't leave a message about this). When visiting a web site with a browser, who reads the TOS, sheesh... any judge would toss the TOS, is there any add-ons in the official repository that a judgement against it? Even I can answer that...NO.. until there is a judgement in that regard this is not illegal. The ad-blockers are fighting the good battle, to make mince meat out of these web toss agreements, perhaps we'll see what comes of that.

American copyright law is not international atm but perhaps the TTP will change that.

You are entitled to your opinion... I'm not in a position to assume what a judge would or would not do with a ToS case or to what extent ToS violations are enforced. Facts are Facts, ToS terms is an agreement between you and the site, ignorance of the law isn't a defense nor is "if it's online, it's free to use".

It's safer to say that kodi plugins are more likely to be legal then illegal...

[Lunatixz]

You're missing the point raised by Lunatix, if say for example the Youtube TOS say you can view but can not redistribute then the Youtube add on/plug in violates the TOS. Youtube allows you to view its videos on the web so it can sell ads vs getting nothing when you used plug-in.

Kodi's youtube plugin breaks a number of ToS terms, the really important ones too... this is apparently allowed by team kodi because of the importance of having a Youtube plugin.... and assumably ignored by Youtube because of the insignificant impact Kodi has on its ad revenues... I hope with binary addons Kodi will have more "Official plugins" (which means the end of "ad free" viewing. But at least it will be 100% on the up and up).

[PatK]

You're missing the point raised by Lunatix, if say for example the Youtube TOS say you can view but can not redistribute then the Youtube add on/plug in violates the TOS. Youtube allows you to view its videos on the web so it can sell ads vs getting nothing when you used plug-in.

I do see what you're saying, but these TOS agreements are way out of line with reality. Take the windows 10 TOS, look closely and not only do they take full ownership of your machine, and everything produced on it, but have claims on anything that is connected to it, be it drives USB sticks etc. and there is no one taking them to task atm. Viewing Youtube is allowed (it's what they want), just because there's a plugin that conveniently layout their links is moot. The video is not rebroadcasting, it's direct... Yes it by-passes their ads (just like my ad-blocker), oh they do get meta-data, never fear they make more of this than you can imagine, (Google going broke? ) not to mention the sign up, sorry I'm just not buying it.

It might be a matter of perspective, but this is the Kodi forum and we should all be about Kodi and how to make it better, not fretting about the legal aspects of which we know nothing! If it's in law you can be sure Team Kodi will act; they get good consul.

[Lunatixz]

I agree we are here to support Kodi... but these kinda issue are important to most developers. There are no guidelines for development, practically no team communication/guidance in the development of plugins.

[PatK]

Developers should really get together more often even if it's only local cells to help clear the air, communication is everything. There has been a lot of open source projects that have gone down the tubes because everyone decided to go in a different direction. Looking at how Linus shepherds the Linux crowd, the projects that have endured have had a strong helm, with stick & reward policing.

I'm not going to have the last word here.

[greenbag]

It also comes down to the country you're in, and their laws about downloading copywritten materials. Canada, for example.. it's legal to download, but illegal to upload/share. Or at least that was the rules just a few years ago.