Login at Kodi Home

~~Ned Scott~~ · (This post was last modified: 2016-05-19, 20:14 by Ned Scott.)

(2016-05-19, 20:00)learningit Wrote:
(2016-05-19, 19:49)Ned Scott Wrote: ...A simple change in naming conventions is all that is needed. ....

Really? To solve what issue?

I really don't care about this, but don't say absurd things. If you are going to insist that HGTV (or one of the other channels) would not raise hell over one of your add-ons looking "official", then you're fooling yourself. This is something that has been tried and tested in app stores for years. Why make yourself a target? Why not at least move towards something that is more clearly nominative use? Why not be more respectful of other people's brands?

Your add-ons are not official, so just make that clear and everybody wins. It's not a bad thing.

jsergio123 · 2016-05-19, 20:17

There's no need to debate it any further. I was only looking for some clarification. I believe the trademark laws are abused by both sides.

I stand with the Kodi team and hope you continue to protect your trademark so you can continue to develop this wonderful piece of open source software (even without piracy) but sometimes it seems you pick and choose which people who infringe who you want to take action against.

**learningit** · (This post was last modified: 2016-05-19, 20:28 by learningit.)

[EDIT] @nedscott You really are a bit of a hole by your own admission. The conversation is about trademark violations, there either is or there is not a violation, a naming convention will not change that. It is not absurd to point that out. There are disclaimers all over the kodi repo and the team acts promptly to remove anything which offends.

~~Ned Scott~~ · 2016-05-19, 20:28

(2016-05-19, 20:18)learningit Wrote: You really are a bit of an asshole by your own admission. The conversation is about trademark violations, there either is or there is not a violation, a naming convention will not change that.

Really? There's no reason to be a jerk about it. No, I am not actually an asshole. I was making a joke before because I know how my posts sometimes look like I really care about minor things. I guess it makes more sense to you to assume I'm attacking you?

Yes, a naming convention would change if something is a trademark violation or not, if that change made it clear that it wasn't official. This is why it is legal to make fan websites and forums, so long as the end result doesn't look like they're official (more or less). This is why third party Twitter apps can exist.

~~Ned Scott~~ · (This post was last modified: 2016-05-19, 20:40 by Ned Scott.)

To be clear, my post here: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=...pid2339956

Is in reply to: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=...pid2339876

Where I am sticking up for, and agreeing with learningit.

Yes, legally speaking, everything is fine. I just think it would be reasonable and wise to go further than that. That's just my two cents, and nothing more. It's not something anyone should offended by. Just because someone said it in a post doesn't make it a demand or a complaint. It's just a conversation, and now it's quickly getting out of control.

**learningit** · 2016-05-19, 20:39

@nedscott I apologize for the harsh words. I don't take anything personally in a public forum. I just want to be clear that your personal opinion that having a naming convention is not a legally correct (in most territories) solution. It is far more complex than that. Actually not having a copyright or trademark accompanying content can be viewed as a violation and the list goes on.

~~Ned Scott~~ · (This post was last modified: 2016-05-19, 20:47 by Ned Scott.)

Fair point :)

I really do love your add-ons and appreciate everything you've done. I'm probably just overthinking things, and I should trust you guys more about this.

**natethomas** · 2016-05-20, 08:02

(2016-05-19, 19:49)Ned Scott Wrote: the Kodi project should know better than to claim ignorance,

To be clear, my earlier statement isn't about claiming ignorance. It's about taking the stand that we are already compliant. The interpretation you guys are making is based on the trademark policy of Kodi and the Kodi trademark policy is designed to attempt to reduce confusion for the particular purposes of Kodi. Trademark policies vastly differ among companies and the vast majority are nothing like our policy. This means that the rules for one company can be completely unlike the rules of another. "NBC for Kodi" might be how NBC wants it, but "ABC Kodi" might actually be how ABC wants it.

There are many reasons why a company has to actively defend their trademark, but a big one is that it's just policed and controlled so dramatically differently than copyright. To the extent that actively trying to be compliant with every single company would be crazy, because it would take actively reaching out and asking every single one of those companies how to do it.

So for our purposes, as long as it's obvious that we aren't actively and clearly trying to pretend to be NBC or ABC or Youtube, then we've done enough to be default "compliant." If these companies decide that we still need to do more to really meet the letter of their policy, then that's fine, but they need to contact us about it.

DarkHelmet · 2016-05-20, 10:49

Interesting debate. So basically trademark right is part of the private law. To simplify a lot: Nothing happens until the trademark holder takes action. Therefore the only one who can say a trademark has been violated is the trademark holder and if no agreement between the holder and the potential breacher is made, finally a court. Is that correct?

Av3nged · 2016-05-20, 15:54

Because of this thread I decided to look up if “Kodi” was trademarked in my country(Canada). It looks like someone applied for that trademark on 2015-04-09. You can read the trademark data Here.

Look at what they offer

Quote:(1) Set top media box and home theatre personal computers.
(2) Computer software programs for the integration of text, audio, graphics, still images and moving pictures into an interactive delivery for multimedia applications.

If you go to that guys website...

Quote:CUT YOUR CABLE! WATCH MORE FREE TV!

**natethomas** · 2016-05-21, 01:53

@DarkHelmet, that's pretty well right, as far as I know.

**scott967** · (This post was last modified: 2016-05-21, 05:09 by scott967.)

(2016-05-20, 10:49)DarkHelmet Wrote: Interesting debate. So basically trademark right is part of the private law. To simplify a lot: Nothing happens until the trademark holder takes action. Therefore the only one who can say a trademark has been violated is the trademark holder and if no agreement between the holder and the potential breacher is made, finally a court. Is that correct?

In the US there is separate criminal law that makes it a crime to "traffic in counterfeit goods or services" and can get you 10 years in Club Fed. Trafficking requires commercial advantage or financial gain, probably not the case here. The basic law in the US is the common law, with the Lanham Act a public statute providing for civil money damages or injunctive relief.

scott s.
.