Add-ons supporting KODI
#16
(2016-11-24, 12:49)trogggy Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement

Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy
So this was wrong?
It should have been 'As long as you're not breaking trademark law it's fine.'?

Because I could point to plenty of posts saying that the trademark policy applies irrespective of whether someone's doing something illegal.

No, it's not wrong, because in this situation keith is taking the stance that having a site with kodi in its name is de facto trademark infringement. People are welcome to argue the elements of trademark infringement, if they like, but that's difficult, uncertain, and could get expensive pretty fast, because the only person that could make a decision on those elements is a judge. Or they could follow the trademark policy which has the major benefit of being fast and cheap/free.
Reply
#17
(2016-11-24, 14:05)natethomas Wrote:
(2016-11-24, 12:49)trogggy Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote: Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy
So this was wrong?
It should have been 'As long as you're not breaking trademark law it's fine.'?

Because I could point to plenty of posts saying that the trademark policy applies irrespective of whether someone's doing something illegal.

No, it's not wrong, because in this situation keith is taking the stance that having a site with kodi in its name is de facto trademark infringement. People are welcome to argue the elements of trademark infringement, if they like, but that's difficult, uncertain, and could get expensive pretty fast, because the only person that could make a decision on those elements is a judge. Or they could follow the trademark policy which has the major benefit of being fast and cheap/free.
I'd love a link to that law.
'UnofficialKoditipswe'renotofficialnothingtodowithTeamKodi.com' would fall foul of that.
If it existed.
Which it doesn't... does it?

Just to be clear...
If I see you going after box sellers, or chasing piracy sites that 'kodified' names, I'll cheer you on.
When I see you effectively shutting down the site of the guy who's hosting a few self-modded skins I think nothing positive.
Reply
#18
(2016-11-24, 13:13)mymo.sunshine Wrote: I still wonder how some official add-ons can be perfectly legal.
For instance, both Rai on demand and Dplay add-ons allow streaming of contents without ads, whereas the respective official apps and websites force the streaming of ads along with their contents. Rai website won't even start playing when detecting adblocks, and Raiplay Android app won't work on devices with adfree or adaway installed.
For those who don't like ads, all these limitations can simply be avoided by just installing Kodi and using its official and allegedly legal add-ons.
Fact is, it's sometimes not even possible to show the ads. And I recall one of the websites being just fine with our community add-on not showing ads when being informed about it. I'm not saying this is perfect, but doesn't break any law or copyright. But we had these kind of discussions over and over already, so no point in doing it once again.
Reply
#19
(2016-11-24, 14:14)trogggy Wrote: I'd love a link to that law.
'UnofficialKoditipswe'renotofficialnothingtodowithTeamKodi.com' would fall foul of that.
If it existed.
Which it doesn't... does it?

Just to be clear...
If I see you going after box sellers, or chasing piracy sites that 'kodified' names, I'll cheer you on.
When I see you effectively shutting down the site of the guy who's hosting a few self-modded skins I think nothing positive.

Here is a link explaining the current law as it stands. http://www.michiganitlaw.com/Trademark-I...ple-Amazon

As you'll no doubt notice, if you read it, it's extraordinarily hazy. There are no bright line rules, only elements to try to weigh out. So, because we're a group of volunteers who don't have time to act like judges with each and every site we have to deal with, we've simply created some bright line rules to work with. One of those rules is that including the name Kodi in a domain, no matter how innocent the intent, is nevertheless likely to cause confusion. This is very likely an over-reach on our part on occasion, but to this point we simply haven't had the man-hours to go site by site, making an internal determination if each site name could cause confusion or not. It's way easier to say "seo-michael" is less likely to cause confusion about where it's coming from than "BestKodiHaxxors." There's a decent chance we'd lose some court battles taking this approach, but our options are limited, given that we don't have full time lawyers constantly working for us.

With that said, our trademark policy actually does account for the hypothetical you described. The policy allows for sites to use the Kodi name with written permission. This was written specifically because we recognize that a straight bright line approach isn't really realistic, the way the laws are written. At this year's devcon, we actually spent quite a lot of time talking about how to finally implement that idea. Now, we just have to get together enough time for the project to do it.
Reply
#20
You can't have it both ways.
It's either an enabler that's only there to give permission to people who'd otherwise be infringing trademark law or it's a tool to make easier decisions about what you'll accept because you haven't got time. It can't be both.
There are grey areas in the law, but there are also obvious cases of fair use where use of the name is not misleading and will not cause harm. If that's now going to be acknowledged then great.
Reply
#21
Your good i have to hand you that, i can manipulate my threads in the same way, but my intent is not PROFIT.
But this line made my bells ring "Danish Expression" and after reading this line i have BIG BEN Striking twelve o'clock over and over again.

what I am looking for is why peer to peer sharing is so easy and if anything has ever been done to stop it, if you have ever been caught,
----------->and how you make a profit from P2P sharing.<--------- i know Students do not have much cash flow, but you should not have included that line, gave you away, so has any "TK" shared how you can make profit from P2P sharing our student is on a fishing trip.

I am probably the only one, seeing the devil on the wall that's fine i stand by my comment.
and this is one post where i will not apologize for being wrong, because i am not.

So obvious
Thank You
English is not my native language; please excuse typing errors.
Grampa Simpson: Unfortunately, like all true stories, this one has a crappy ending. You have a story with an ending.
Grampa, are you sure you're okay to drive at night? Grampa: It's night?
Banned add-ons
Reply
#22
(2016-11-24, 13:17)trogggy Wrote: Breaking the terms and conditions of a website does not (necessarily) equate to breaking the law.
Indeed it is not, necessarily. But it can be a breech of contract, which is punished in many legal systems. And that gives the right to the owner of the contents to sue for damage those who facilitate the breech of terms and conditions.
Reply
#23
(2016-11-24, 16:26)mymo.sunshine Wrote:
(2016-11-24, 13:17)trogggy Wrote: Breaking the terms and conditions of a website does not (necessarily) equate to breaking the law.
Indeed it is not, necessarily. But it can be a breech of contract, which is punished in many legal systems. And that gives the right to the owner of the contents to sue for damage those who facilitate the breech of terms and conditions.
So say which ones you think are actually illegal and why so. Probably not on this thread though.
Just don't be surprised when it turns out that nobody's really interested because they've already looked and decided it's okay.
Reply
#24
I have already given some examples, and I'm no judge, just an attorney. Btw, to be okay doesn't mean it doesn't (directly or indirectly) break the law... and whole add-on policy is shady and holier than thou.
Nobody sues because it's a waste of time and money to attack some add-ons that have such a minimal market share. If Kodi were installed on every tv, the whole matter would be totally different.
Reply
#25
(2016-11-24, 16:29)trogggy Wrote: So say which ones you think are actually illegal and why so. Probably not on this thread though.
Just don't be surprised when it turns out that nobody's really interested because they've already looked and decided it's okay.

Or, when those addons simply jump ship when life gets too hard, on to another forum which has a different policy / interpretation.
Now, fair enough that may be one less grey addon for Kodi to worry about, but in the context of the content provider it doesn't change anything.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge please click the 'Thumb Up - Like' button to show me your appreciation :)
For YouTube questions see the official thread here.
Reply
#26
As a separate note I like da-anda's post here http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=...pid2462143 on the previous page.

(2016-11-23, 20:06)da-anda Wrote: IMO streaming of pirated content only became so popular because of the barriers the movie industrie is creating for customers. Biggest ones DRM and geoblocking. Instead of spending millions on encrypting content and putting barriers in the customers way, they should have spent that money in better broadcasting platforms or distribution systems. The easier the content is to consume, the more people will use it. If you have to pay for 5 streaming services only to see the TV shows you love, and constantly have to jump between websites/apps/devices, then this is surely nothing users are happy to do. Give them one platform with all the content they desire and they'll use it. Some of the streaming services are even not available for all platforms, TVs, settop boxes the users have, which is even more annoying. Amazon Prime not being available for AndroidTV is such an example.

DRM f.e. on Blurays is also totally ridiculous. Who isn't pissed having to do a firmware upgrade on the bluray player only to watch the new movie he just payed for. Pirates otoh only have to press one button these days and are also not forced to watch these lame trailers upfront.

The situation with Video now is much is the same as it was with Music years ago, until this model was broken (with some hands being forced by rampant piracy too of course) and for the average person it finally became easier, simpler, and relatively cheap to buy the Music legally. Users got what they want, and content providers got paid. Good.

Video is still in a mixed position. We aren't there yet. Yes there are the Netflix type distribution models but they still have limitations, especially for users outside the USA. For many of these users, even if they wish to pay for legal content, it simply isn't available and/or possible. But users still want/need their content, so it's no surprise where they end up going to find this...

As it was with Music for many years the content providers still continue to shoot themselves in the foot, which is really a pity.

This doesn't help anyone but unfortunately it seems that the content providers remain slow learners.
If I have helped you or increased your knowledge please click the 'Thumb Up - Like' button to show me your appreciation :)
For YouTube questions see the official thread here.
Reply
#27
(2016-11-24, 15:33)trogggy Wrote: You can't have it both ways.
It's either an enabler that's only there to give permission to people who'd otherwise be infringing trademark law or it's a tool to make easier decisions about what you'll accept because you haven't got time. It can't be both.
There are grey areas in the law, but there are also obvious cases of fair use where use of the name is not misleading and will not cause harm. If that's now going to be acknowledged then great.

You are confusing two things. The policy is an enabler. Our official stance on what constitutes a trademark violation in the first place is meant to make decisions easier. Those are two different things.
Reply
#28
I have thought this with the various BBC iPlayer addons that we have had down the years. It is not so much the addons themselves, but I have read support threads that actively encourage the use of a VPN to access the BBC iPlayer from another country, which is directly breaking UK law and defrauding the UK tax payer.
HTPCs: 2 x Chromecast with Google TV
Audio: Pioneer VSX-819HK & S-HS 100 5.1 Speakers
Server: HP Compaq Pro 6300, 4GB RAM, 8.75TB, Bodhi Linux 5.x, NFS, MySQL
Reply
#29
Slight pedantic correction - the BBC is funded by the UK TV licence fee, not by the government (ie by the UK taxpayer).

Technically and editorially it's supposed to be independent and unbiased, although whether it actually is is a whole other debate. If it were taxpayer funded then it certainly wouldn't be independent.

Note also that it you don't watch BBC programming (for example you only commercial channels) you still need to have one, which again is another seperate argument.

So as not to digress this thread, for some of those other topics see this thread.
|Banned add-ons (wiki)|Forum rules (wiki)|VPN policy (wiki)|First time user (wiki)|FAQs (wiki) Troubleshooting (wiki)|Add-ons (wiki)|Free content (wiki)|Debug Log (wiki)|

Kodi Blog Posts
Reply

Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Add-ons supporting KODI0