[Ned Scott]

None of it would go to Kodi. It would be completely independent of Kodi. We are talking about content creators.

If you want to block ads then use an ad-blocker. However, the option of supporting people who need that money to make a living should be there. Don't assume that everyone using ads on YouTube is some big company a-hole. A ton of people are just trying to make ends meet. If that is the cost for getting the content then I don't see it as unreasonable.

Except for youtube annotations. Screw those things. A pre-roll ad that you can skip after a few seconds is fine by me, but the ads should not block the content itself. Then it becomes self-defeating.

[greenbag]

Here's another thing to consider... although a different medium, if you remember the Metallica vs Napster case, it showed how greedy Lars could be. Fastforward to today, and Lars regrets it. He doesn't endorse the downloading, but he sees how it actually boosts sales in the end. Fans hear the mp3 quality, then want to buy the cd with the artwork and all. The same goes for movies. There's a lot of movies I never would have heard of if not for Kodi.. and some I actually want to purchase for my collection now. That wouldn't have happened without being able to watch it first.

[PatK]

There's a lot of movies I never would have heard of if not for Kodi..

You mean it never would have happened if there wasn't a 3rd party illegal add-on you searched out that allowed you to use Kodi in a pirate way. Don't blame or boast your lack of morality on Kodi.

[RamboUnchained]

I agree with a lot of points on both sides, but Pulsar is supported here, so it makes a lot of you guys look hypocritical. I'd be willing to bet money that the average Pulsar/Quasar user is streaming illegally obtained movies and tv shows from torrent sites...There's nothing shady about a torrent streaming addon if it's in the main repo, right? Just because it's against the rules for people to talk about how they use it doesn't mean they arent using it in a way that's frowned upon here. The only reason those addons aren't banned is due to wording. They're used for the same things that many blacklisted addons are used for.

[DarrenHill]

Neither of those add-ons provide any media or links to it. That is the key point here and the only reason they are allowed.

If users wish to use Kodi for accessing illegal media that is entirely their choice and we are neutral on it. But what we do not do is help them to do so, nor do we allow promotion or discussion about it. But equally we do not prevent it in the code. It's part of the open source nature of the app and user freedom.

What we object to is when that choice is taken away either by pre installed add-ons on "fully loaded" boxes or by misrepresentation on YouTube or other media that we do provide such add-ons to directly access the pirate media sources.

In a more ideal world we would just like to see proper representation, accountability and responsibility taken by users, 3rd party add-on authors and by the YouTube video makers. Nate's blog explains it well.

[greenbag]

There's a lot of movies I never would have heard of if not for Kodi..

You mean it never would have happened if there wasn't a 3rd party illegal add-on you searched out that allowed you to use Kodi in a pirate way. Don't blame or boast your lack of morality on Kodi.

An addon is nothing more than a group of links that are already available through google. Unless it's actually streaming live cable or satellite streams, then it's not illegal. You are allowed to record movies from tv, and share those with family and friends. Just not a full bit for bit copy. My country doesn't have a problem with it. Neither do I.


edit: If google wanted to shut down streaming sites they'd stop showing links in searches. If they can block jh!hadist websites, then they can block streaming sites just as easily.

[greenbag]

Fair Use:

Fair use is a complete defense to copyright infringement, however, whether it is properly relied upon is determined on a case-by-case basis. A court must consider the following four factors when determining whether the fair use defense applies:

Purpose and Nature of Use. Fair use is more easily established if a use of copyrighted material is "transformative," meaning the use adds something new, with a further purpose or different character. For example, a search engine's reproduction of copyrighted images as directive thumbnails was held to be transformative because it served an entirely different function than the copyright holder's use - improving access to online information versus artistic expression. In contrast, content is often posted on social media sites mainly for aesthetic or entertainment value.

Nature of the Work. Fair use is more difficult to establish when creative works, rather than informational or functional works, are copied. Courts are also more likely to protect copyrighted works that are unpublished, confidential, or out of print. Social media users post a wide range of content on social media sites – the specific work posted will determine whether this factor weighs for or against a fair use defense.

Amount and Substantiality of the Portion Used. As the amount of the copyrighted work used increases, the likelihood that the use will constitute a fair use decreases. Courts will also look at the nature of the copying, including whether the "essence" of the work was copied. Needless to say, there is no magic number.

Effect of Use Upon Market or Value. Fair use is more difficult to establish if the use of a copyrighted work tends to (i) diminish or prejudice the potential sale of the work, (ii) interfere with the work's marketability, or (iii) fulfills the demand for the work. Posting copyrighted material on social media sites could potentially do any of these three things. On the other hand, it could benefit the copyright holder by garnering visibility and increasing demand for the original work.

Ultimately, courts are left with almost complete discretion in determining whether any given factor is present and the weight given to each factor. Fair use evaluations may therefore rarely be made with certainty. Instead of solely relying on a fair use defense, consider taking the following steps:

Check the original source of content for copyright notices or information about how the content may be used. When in doubt, obtain a license from the copyright holder.

If copyrighted content is posted by other social media users, check the social media network's terms and conditions for authorization to re-post the content. For example, under Pinterest's Terms of Service, a user who posts content on Pinterest provides all other users a license to use that content on Pinterest.

Instead of posting copyrighted content directly on your social media page, post a link to the original source containing the content. While giving attribution to the original source is not a defense to infringement, it may help reduce the likelihood of receiving a complaint and supports a fair use defense.

So... showing links to copywritten materials is not illegal. It's up to the enduser, and the laws of his/her country. Watching a live stream of a pay-per-view hockey game, being streamed directly from a local/national cable/satellite service is illegal. But, watching the same stream coming from an internet feed from the UK.. is not illegal. It's a grey area. Morals? More morals than driving a car filled with gas.. which countries get bombed over. More morals than eating chocolate.. which child labour is still being used. More morals than arresting someone for feeding the homeless.. which is happening in some states now.

[0wing]

Fair use doesn't cover piracy of any kind.

[greenbag]

Fair use doesn't cover piracy of any kind.

In the case of sites or plugins advertising links, and not hosting the files themselves.. then it's covered. Otherwise, google would be just as guilty.

edit: and it depends what's considered piracy. Recording a movie off the tv, using a dvd+r is legal. You're allowed to share that with family and friends. It's not a full bit for bit hd copy.. it's sd. Fair use covers that as well. As for studios that release screeners.. it may actually be the studios who release a copy or 2 to the public, just to boost hype for their movies. They could always put a digital tag specific to each disc before sending them out to people who review the movies to begin with. then they'd know who actually released it. But like I said.. it could be the studios themselves.

[greenbag]

Just so you know my point of view, I'm Canadian. We have our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.. it gives us a lot of power. It allowed us to decrypt US satellite signals that were beamed into our backyards.. as long as it was for our own personal use. We're not allowed to pay for a subscription to a foreign satellite service though.. unless it's a big assed c-band. Hell.. we're not even allowed Netflix anymore.

When it comes to music, we actually have the right to make personal copies.. protected by law. And when it comes to viewing streaming content.. copywritten or not.. we're allowed. As long as we don't upload it. And as long as it's not from a Canadian site. Like Demenoid. That's why they moved.

The most controversial sources are unauthorized streaming websites that offer free content without permission of the rights holder. Canadian copyright law is well-equipped to stop such unauthorized services if they are located in Canada since the law features provisions that can be used to shut down websites that “enable” infringement.

Those accessing the streams are unlikely to be infringing copyright, however. The law exempts temporary reproductions of copyrighted works if completed for technical reasons. Since most streaming video does not actually involve downloading a copy of the work (it merely creates a temporary copy that cannot be permanently copied), users can legitimately argue that merely watching a non-downloaded stream does not run afoul of the law.

Not only does the law give the viewer some comfort, but enforcement against individuals would in any event be exceptionally difficult. Unlike peer-to-peer downloading, in which users’ Internet addresses are publicly visible, only the online streaming site knows the address of the streaming viewer. That means that rights holders simply do not know who is watching an unauthorized stream and are therefore unable to forward notifications.

Code:

http://www.thestar.com/business/2015/01/16/how-canadian-law-views-online-streaming-video-geist.html

Code:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_sharing_in_Canada

[Ned Scott]

I agree with a lot of points on both sides, but Pulsar is supported here, so it makes a lot of you guys look hypocritical. I'd be willing to bet money that the average Pulsar/Quasar user is streaming illegally obtained movies and tv shows from torrent sites...There's nothing shady about a torrent streaming addon if it's in the main repo, right? Just because it's against the rules for people to talk about how they use it doesn't mean they arent using it in a way that's frowned upon here. The only reason those addons aren't banned is due to wording. They're used for the same things that many blacklisted addons are used for.

If things were banned on how "most" people used them then we probably wouldn't have Kodi at all. Or even things like the MKV file container.

And no, it's not hypocritical. The Kodi project is not trying to stop piracy. The Kodi project is not trying to help movie producers or anyone else. The Kodi project doesn't allow people to give support on the forums for blatant pirate/bootleg content, for the sake of the Kodi project's image. Other than that, no one really cares much about the broken copyright system. As long as it doesn't involve Kodi's reputation, then do whatever you want.

Heartless and selfish, maybe, but not hypocritical.

[greenbag]

I should have mentioned, that here in Canada, we also pay a tax on blank medium.. blank cd's, dvd's, and bluray disks. This tax goes to the music and movie industries.. regardless if the content being burned to disk is a personal wedding video, or a home made backup of a dvd or cd you legally bought. We're allowed to back them up.. that's the whole reason for the tax, so the industries still get their cut. Even if it's personal materials, even just backing up data from a drive. They still get the tax.

[RamboUnchained]

I agree with a lot of points on both sides, but Pulsar is supported here, so it makes a lot of you guys look hypocritical. I'd be willing to bet money that the average Pulsar/Quasar user is streaming illegally obtained movies and tv shows from torrent sites...There's nothing shady about a torrent streaming addon if it's in the main repo, right? Just because it's against the rules for people to talk about how they use it doesn't mean they arent using it in a way that's frowned upon here. The only reason those addons aren't banned is due to wording. They're used for the same things that many blacklisted addons are used for.

If things were banned on how "most" people used them then we probably wouldn't have Kodi at all. Or even things like the MKV file container.

And no, it's not hypocritical. The Kodi project is not trying to stop piracy. The Kodi project is not trying to help movie producers or anyone else. The Kodi project doesn't allow people to give support on the forums for blatant pirate/bootleg content, for the sake of the Kodi project's image. Other than that, no one really cares much about the broken copyright system. As long as it doesn't involve Kodi's reputation, then do whatever you want.

Heartless and selfish, maybe, but not hypocritical.

So you're telling me that more than half of the users use Quasar for something that doesnt involve viewing and/or storing copywritten material?. I have no stake in any of this either way. I understand that Kodi would rather not be associated with the "hey, free movies here" guys, but at the same time, hosting Pulsar/Quasar, couch potato, and any other paid service that utilizes Usenet and torrents in the official repo make it all questionable is all I'm saying. The route to the end goal may be different with blacklisted addons, but the end goal doesn't change: free media streaming/downloading of copywritten product. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Not that it's going to stop me from using Kodi. I've been using Kodi/XBMC since I had an 8TB Windows NAS running Eden. Back when storage was expensive and I was spending days at a time ripping my BluRay collection. Back when you had to know a thing or two to get Kodi/XBMC to do things that seem so basic now. I've seen coders come and go. Some of them have came from banned forums to here and vice-versa. It's all just so mainstream now. People view Kodi as a free movie program and that couldn't be further from the truth. Unless you guys are making a decent amount of money from downloads, I would have rathered it stayed underground TBH. Some of the blacklisted addons are great 3rd party additions IMO, but they aren't what Kodi is all about. Not even close. Nothing will top having a movie night and scrolling through your library showing people all of the things Kodi can do. Then actually playing a movie with a fully configured Cinema Experience/Vision and a 20MBps rip from your personal collection ready to thrill your guests. That's what Kodi is all about. IdiotBox sellers are telling people otherwise and making a killing. All whle slowly killing Kodi itself.

[greenbag]

So you're telling me that more than half of the users use Quasar for something that doesnt involve viewing and/or storing copywritten material?. I have no stake in any of this either way. I understand that Kodi would rather not be associated with the "hey, free movies here" guys, but at the same time, hosting Pulsar/Quasar, couch potato, and any other paid service that utilizes Usenet and torrents in the official repo make it all questionable is all I'm saying. The route to the end goal may be different with blacklisted addons, but the end goal doesn't change: free media streaming/downloading of copywritten product. Just my thoughts on the matter.

As long as you aren't actually storing the material, giving access to someone else's links isn't illegal. Open Bing or Google right now, and click the video tab.. search for star wars full.. see what pops up. They have multiple copies that can be viewed right there. That's no different.

[RamboUnchained]

So you're telling me that more than half of the users use Quasar for something that doesnt involve viewing and/or storing copywritten material?. I have no stake in any of this either way. I understand that Kodi would rather not be associated with the "hey, free movies here" guys, but at the same time, hosting Pulsar/Quasar, couch potato, and any other paid service that utilizes Usenet and torrents in the official repo make it all questionable is all I'm saying. The route to the end goal may be different with blacklisted addons, but the end goal doesn't change: free media streaming/downloading of copywritten product. Just my thoughts on the matter.

As long as you aren't actually storing the material, giving access to someone else's links isn't illegal. Open Bing or Google right now, and click the video tab.. search for star wars full.. see what pops up. They have multiple copies that can be viewed right there. That's no different.

I never said it was different. However, I feel that it's...unethical to shun "piracy" addons from 3rd party hosts when we have our own special breed of piracy addons right in the official repo. Also, it's not possible to watch stored media without caching bits of the file itself. It may not be "download and keep" illegal, but it's still illegal. Giving someone access to the link is what makes it illegal lol. The moment you rip and redistribute copywritten material you're a piracy advocate. They get bigger fines than the people that just download the stuff. Personally, I couldn't care less. The actors and studios are worth millions and billions respectively and I still buy actual discs for movies I really enjoyed in theaters. I've hosted multiple movie showings with 50+ attendees in my back yard. In the court's eyes, I'd be just as bad as someone that shared a movie on a torrent site with 50 people. Maybe even worse, because I charge for food and drinks as well lol.