Kodi Community Forum

(2014-09-20, 23:09)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]Are you talking about this thread: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=204723 ?

I didn't personally trash it, but it explicitly mentioned navi-x and mashup, which I presume is why it got trashed. Had nothing to do with the rom emulator.

Yes, that's the thread I was referencing. I never used or even heard of those other two plug-ins so rom emulation was the only real red flag I can see it being trashed for. Still, having the Garbage Bin as publicly viewable sucks. I don't know how professional Team Kodi wants to be but tarring and feathering is rather immature, isn't it?

And of course the one who trashed the thread just told me to get a life... how mature.

(2014-09-20, 23:05)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]My argument is that Kodi's policy explicitly states that talk of any add-on that even accesses illegal content (see also ROMs) is in violation of the policy. And one of the most recent trashed conversations was simply someone asking for support when his installation got hosed after running an emulator via RCB, if I recall from this morning.

Yet in spite of this, there's threads dedicated to RCB. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that then I don't know what to tell you and perhaps personal bias is at play.

At a guess, you didn't read the forum rules very well. http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Forum_rules If you'll check again, you might notice that we pretty much exclusively use the phrase "pirated content" and not "illegal content." The reason we do this is because the stand we are generally trying to take is one against the use of XBMC to share and distribute (aka "pirate") content. We are not interested in taking other stands on illegal grounds, partly because what is legal and illegal differs from nation to nation.

(2014-09-20, 23:15)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Still, having the Garbage Bin as publicly viewable sucks. I don't know how professional Team Kodi wants to be but tarring and feathering is rather immature, isn't it?

I honestly have no opinion on this. It's been publicly viewable since at least 2008, when I first registered my username. I assume it's been viewable since we first started these forums in 2003. For the most part, I assume no one ever goes to it, unless their specific thread was trashed, and then there's at least a marginal value to having it be viewable, as the poster can actually see the thread to argue their case that it shouldn't have been trashed. Beyond that, I can't imagine that there are really all that many people who care.

With that said, if you want to have a discussion about hiding the trashed forum, please do so outside of the piracy discussion thread.

(2014-09-20, 23:16)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]

(2014-09-20, 23:05)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]My argument is that Kodi's policy explicitly states that talk of any add-on that even accesses illegal content (see also ROMs) is in violation of the policy. And one of the most recent trashed conversations was simply someone asking for support when his installation got hosed after running an emulator via RCB, if I recall from this morning.

Yet in spite of this, there's threads dedicated to RCB. If you can't see the hypocrisy in that then I don't know what to tell you and perhaps personal bias is at play.

At a guess, you didn't read the forum rules very well. http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Forum_rules If you'll check again, you might notice that we pretty much exclusively use the phrase "pirated content" and not "illegal content." The reason we do this is because the stand we are generally trying to take is one against the use of XBMC to share and distribute (aka "pirate") content. We are not interested in taking other stands on illegal grounds, partly because what is legal and illegal differs from nation to nation.

Unauthorized copy = pirated. Likewise, if the latter were true, you wouldn't care about adhering to US copyright law specifically as cited by "or services that violate US copyright laws ("pirated content")". RCB is a service in a sense, it provides you with the means to play content that by far and wide illegal unless you're one of the RARE few who use public domain roms - hence my thread for help when the offline scraper went haywire, let alone the need for offline scraping.

ROMs and their usage are a flagrant violation of US copyright law in virtually every scenario. Nuff said.

(2014-09-20, 23:29)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Unauthorized copy = pirated. Likewise, if the latter were true, you wouldn't care about adhering to US copyright law specifically as cited by "or services that violate US copyright laws ("pirated content")".

ROMs and their usage are a flagrant violation of US copyright law in virtually every scenario. Nuff said.

This argument is getting circular now. Every ripped audio CD is an unauthorized copy. Better sue the entire population of the United States.

At this point, I'm beginning to believe you are trolling me. So I'm going to outline the conversation. Please silo your responses to each individual section. If you do not, I will assume you are trolling, and will ban you for a period of days.


1. Is the use of ROMs a violation of copyright?

It is not, as a ROM is essentially the equivalent of any other copyrighted content, and in every other medium (music, movies, etc.) once you've purchased the media, you have the right to format shift it, so long as you don't violate any other laws in the process. Note: Copyright is not the same thing as the rules of the DMCA.

2. Is the use of ROMs a violation of the DMCA, due to cracking DRM?

If you have to crack DRM to use or rip a ROM, yes, it is a violation of the DMCA to rip the ROM. If you do not have to crack the DRM, it is not. That is the rule. There is no additional evidence to consider. The question is exclusive "Was DRM cracked?"

3. Does XBMC care if you violate copyright or the DMCA?

No.

4. Does XBMC care if you use XBMC to violate copyright or the DMCA?

Yes.

5. How can you use XBMC to violate copyright?

Because we believe that format shifting is perfectly within fair use rights regardless of media type (see #1), simply using media on another platform is not a violation of copyright. For example, if you rip an MP3 from a CD, you are welcome to listen to that MP3 with XBMC. In fact, you are also welcome to use XBMC to perform that rip.

Therefore, the only way to use XBMC to violate copyright is to use XBMC to acquire media that you do not own, by using XBMC to download or stream that content from the internet. Similarly, you could theoretically use XBMC to upload content, which is a similar violation of copyright.

Thus, for the purposes of copyright, we care if you use XBMC to acquire or share content. We do not care if you use XBMC to use, view, or even format-shift content.

6. How can you use XBMC to violate the DMCA?

The only applicable article of the DMCA to XBMC is cracking DRM. If you use XBMC to crack DRM, we would not like that. If the DRM is already cracked before the content reaches XBMC, then we do not care how you use the content on XBMC, because XBMC itself did not do the illegal thing.

7. How do EULAs play into all this?

They do not. EULAs are contract agreements legally unrelated to both copyright and the DMCA. The violation of an EULA by a user is of absolutely zero interest to us at XBMC and has no bearing on discussions of either copyright or the DMCA.

8. Summary: How does this apply to ROMs?

ROMs are media, just like music and videos.

If ROMs do not have any DRM, then they are subject to the same fair use rights that music and videos are subject to, meaning format shifting is perfectly legal. As such, if ROMs do not have DRM, it is as legal to play a ROM with XBMC as it is to play a format shifted song or movie. In fact, if the ROMs do not have DRM, it is even legal to use XBMC to perform the format shifting.

If ROMs do have DRM, and that DRM has been removed by 3rd party software unrelated to XBMC, but the source of the ROM is otherwise legally owned, users are welcome to use XBMC to play the ROM content, much like how users are welcome to play ripped DVDs and Blurays. So long as you don't use XBMC to perform the ripping, you can do what you like.

If, instead of all of the above, you use XBMC to actually acquire the ROMs from 3rd party sites, you will be using XBMC itself to perform an illegal task. This would be the point in which we would be forced to step in and trash the addon that is allowing the procuring of content you don't own.

Conclusion

As far as I know, there is no more clear and succinct way of explaining this concept. If you still fail to understand our position, I will assume you are either willfully failing to understand, or mentally incapable of understanding. In either case, I will act appropriately.

(2014-09-20, 23:29)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Unauthorized copy = pirated.

Well, not really. A company can refuse to authorize something even if it doesn't have the legal authority to do anything about it. Even the so called NES-101, the top loading late model NES, lacked the 10NES chip and this allowed the machine to readily play any 'unauthorized' game without violating Nintendo's copyright or now expired patents. The machine simply didn't use a 10NES chip and that was that. Just as readily, an emulator can not emulate the 10NES chip features and the game will load fine.

(2014-09-21, 00:14)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]

(2014-09-20, 23:29)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Unauthorized copy = pirated. Likewise, if the latter were true, you wouldn't care about adhering to US copyright law specifically as cited by "or services that violate US copyright laws ("pirated content")".

ROMs and their usage are a flagrant violation of US copyright law in virtually every scenario. Nuff said.

This argument is getting circular now. Every ripped audio CD is an unauthorized copy. Better sue the entire population of the United States.

At this point, I'm beginning to believe you are trolling me. So I'm going to outline the conversation. Please silo your responses to each individual section. If you do not, I will assume you are trolling, and will ban you for a period of days.


1. Is the use of ROMs a violation of copyright?

It is not, as a ROM is essentially the equivalent of any other copyrighted content, and in every other medium (music, movies, etc.) once you've purchased the media, you have the right to format shift it, so long as you don't violate any other laws in the process. Note: Copyright is not the same thing as the rules of the DMCA.

2. Is the use of ROMs a violation of the DMCA, due to cracking DRM?

If you have to crack DRM to use or rip a ROM, yes, it is a violation of the DMCA to rip the ROM. If you do not have to crack the DRM, it is not. That is the rule. There is no additional evidence to consider. The question is exclusive "Was DRM cracked?"

3. Does XBMC care if you violate copyright or the DMCA?

No.

4. Does XBMC care if you use XBMC to violate copyright or the DMCA?

Yes.

5. How can you use XBMC to violate copyright?

Because we believe that format shifting is perfectly within fair use rights regardless of media type (see #1), simply using media on another platform is not a violation of copyright. For example, if you rip an MP3 from a CD, you are welcome to listen to that MP3 with XBMC. In fact, you are also welcome to use XBMC to perform that rip.

Therefore, the only way to use XBMC to violate copyright is to use XBMC to acquire media that you do not own, by using XBMC to download or stream that content from the internet. Similarly, you could theoretically use XBMC to upload content, which is a similar violation of copyright.

Thus, for the purposes of copyright, we care if you use XBMC to acquire or share content. We do not care if you use XBMC to use, view, or even format-shift content.

6. How can you use XBMC to violate the DMCA?

The only applicable article of the DMCA to XBMC is cracking DRM. If you use XBMC to crack DRM, we would not like that. If the DRM is already cracked before the content reaches XBMC, then we do not care how you use the content on XBMC, because XBMC itself did not do the illegal thing.

7. How do EULAs play into all this?

They do not. EULAs are contract agreements legally unrelated to both copyright and the DMCA. The violation of an EULA by a user is of absolutely zero interest to us at XBMC and has no bearing on discussions of either copyright or the DMCA.

8. Summary: How does this apply to ROMs?

ROMs are media, just like music and videos.

If ROMs do not have any DRM, then they are subject to the same fair use rights that music and videos are subject to, meaning format shifting is perfectly legal. As such, if ROMs do not have DRM, it is as legal to play a ROM with XBMC as it is to play a format shifted song or movie. In fact, if the ROMs do not have DRM, it is even legal to use XBMC to perform the format shifting.

If ROMs do have DRM, and that DRM has been removed by 3rd party software unrelated to XBMC, but the source of the ROM is otherwise legally owned, users are welcome to use XBMC to play the ROM content, much like how users are welcome to play ripped DVDs and Blurays. So long as you don't use XBMC to perform the ripping, you can do what you like.

If, instead of all of the above, you use XBMC to actually acquire the ROMs from 3rd party sites, you will be using XBMC itself to perform an illegal task. This would be the point in which we would be forced to step in and trash the addon that is allowing the procuring of content you don't own.

Conclusion

As far as I know, there is no more clear and succinct way of explaining this concept. If you still fail to understand our position, I will assume you are either willfully failing to understand, or mentally incapable of understanding. In either case, I will act appropriately.

I'm afraid its you who is willfully refusing to understand. I'm going to drop this here and call it a day:

Q: Are Game Copying Devices Illegal?

A: Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.

Source: http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp

Therefore, if the copying itself is illegal, then so are the games being copied. Music is not software, its subject to an entirely different set of regulations. Now, please stop trolling me with ignorance.

Instead just delete my account and posts. I'm done here with this den of theives.

(2014-09-21, 00:44)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]

(2014-09-21, 00:14)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]

(2014-09-20, 23:29)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Unauthorized copy = pirated. Likewise, if the latter were true, you wouldn't care about adhering to US copyright law specifically as cited by "or services that violate US copyright laws ("pirated content")".

ROMs and their usage are a flagrant violation of US copyright law in virtually every scenario. Nuff said.

This argument is getting circular now. Every ripped audio CD is an unauthorized copy. Better sue the entire population of the United States.

At this point, I'm beginning to believe you are trolling me. So I'm going to outline the conversation. Please silo your responses to each individual section. If you do not, I will assume you are trolling, and will ban you for a period of days.


1. Is the use of ROMs a violation of copyright?

It is not, as a ROM is essentially the equivalent of any other copyrighted content, and in every other medium (music, movies, etc.) once you've purchased the media, you have the right to format shift it, so long as you don't violate any other laws in the process. Note: Copyright is not the same thing as the rules of the DMCA.

2. Is the use of ROMs a violation of the DMCA, due to cracking DRM?

If you have to crack DRM to use or rip a ROM, yes, it is a violation of the DMCA to rip the ROM. If you do not have to crack the DRM, it is not. That is the rule. There is no additional evidence to consider. The question is exclusive "Was DRM cracked?"

3. Does XBMC care if you violate copyright or the DMCA?

No.

4. Does XBMC care if you use XBMC to violate copyright or the DMCA?

Yes.

5. How can you use XBMC to violate copyright?

Because we believe that format shifting is perfectly within fair use rights regardless of media type (see #1), simply using media on another platform is not a violation of copyright. For example, if you rip an MP3 from a CD, you are welcome to listen to that MP3 with XBMC. In fact, you are also welcome to use XBMC to perform that rip.

Therefore, the only way to use XBMC to violate copyright is to use XBMC to acquire media that you do not own, by using XBMC to download or stream that content from the internet. Similarly, you could theoretically use XBMC to upload content, which is a similar violation of copyright.

Thus, for the purposes of copyright, we care if you use XBMC to acquire or share content. We do not care if you use XBMC to use, view, or even format-shift content.

6. How can you use XBMC to violate the DMCA?

The only applicable article of the DMCA to XBMC is cracking DRM. If you use XBMC to crack DRM, we would not like that. If the DRM is already cracked before the content reaches XBMC, then we do not care how you use the content on XBMC, because XBMC itself did not do the illegal thing.

7. How do EULAs play into all this?

They do not. EULAs are contract agreements legally unrelated to both copyright and the DMCA. The violation of an EULA by a user is of absolutely zero interest to us at XBMC and has no bearing on discussions of either copyright or the DMCA.

8. Summary: How does this apply to ROMs?

ROMs are media, just like music and videos.

If ROMs do not have any DRM, then they are subject to the same fair use rights that music and videos are subject to, meaning format shifting is perfectly legal. As such, if ROMs do not have DRM, it is as legal to play a ROM with XBMC as it is to play a format shifted song or movie. In fact, if the ROMs do not have DRM, it is even legal to use XBMC to perform the format shifting.

If ROMs do have DRM, and that DRM has been removed by 3rd party software unrelated to XBMC, but the source of the ROM is otherwise legally owned, users are welcome to use XBMC to play the ROM content, much like how users are welcome to play ripped DVDs and Blurays. So long as you don't use XBMC to perform the ripping, you can do what you like.

If, instead of all of the above, you use XBMC to actually acquire the ROMs from 3rd party sites, you will be using XBMC itself to perform an illegal task. This would be the point in which we would be forced to step in and trash the addon that is allowing the procuring of content you don't own.

Conclusion

As far as I know, there is no more clear and succinct way of explaining this concept. If you still fail to understand our position, I will assume you are either willfully failing to understand, or mentally incapable of understanding. In either case, I will act appropriately.

I'm afraid its you who is willfully refusing to understand. I'm going to drop this here and call it a day:

Q: Are Game Copying Devices Illegal?

A: Yes. Game copiers enable users to illegally copy video game software onto floppy disks, writeable compact disks or the hard drive of a personal computer. They enable the user to make, play and distribute illegal copies of video game software which violates Nintendo's copyrights and trademarks. These devices also allow for the uploading and downloading of ROMs to and from the Internet. Based upon the functions of these devices, they are illegal.

Source: http://www.nintendo.com/corp/legal.jsp

Therefore, if the copying itself is illegal, then so are the games being copied. Music is not saoftware, its subject top an entirely different set of laws. Now, please stop trolling me with ignorance.

Well Nintendo would say that wouldn't they. I wouldn't go to Nintendo for legal advice any more than I'd go to a law firm to buy a game console. Their statement ignores fair use. It confuses backing up or format shifting with distribution and you fall into their bulldust.

EDIT: how do you work out music and software are covered by different laws?

Even though I think that this discussion is completely moot as RCB is nothing but a scraper + browser with a function to lunch other software, funny you linked to Nintendo as they clearly state:

Quote:The backup/archival copy exception is a very narrow limitation relating to a copy being made by the rightful owner of an authentic game to ensure he or she has one in the event of damage or destruction of the authentic.

But have in mind, everything you read there may differ depending on where you are.

(2014-09-21, 00:44)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]Music is not software, its subject to an entirely different set of regulations. Now, please stop trolling me with ignorance.

Instead just delete my account and posts. I'm done here with this den of theives.

This would also be worth adding to an FAQ.

Q. Is software subject to different regulations than music and other media?

A. Yes and no. The gov't does not make distinctions between forms of expression. Instead, it makes distinctions between methods of regulating that expression. The gov't has 3 historic/common law methods of regulation that have subsequently been codified by statute, as well as one statutory form of regulation.

The historic/common law forms are copyright, trademark, and patent. The purely statutory form is the recently enacted DMCA. Copyright rules do not vary between different forms of media. Nor do trademark and DMCA rules.

Patent rules are somewhat different, in that software, which was previously considered only math and art (the legal definitions, obviously), now has the ability to also be considered a process, and therefore patentable.

So while you are correct that the gov't does distinguish between music and software, it does not distinguish between them for the purposes of copyright.

(2014-09-21, 00:50)nickr Wrote: [ -> ]Well Nintendo would say that wouldn't they. I wouldn't go to Nintendo for legal advice any more than I'd go to a law firm to buy a game console. Their statement ignores fair use. It confuses backing up or format shifting with distribution and you fall into their bulldust.

Besides that, who cares if it is or is not illegal for the purposes of this discussion? As already pointed out, there is a distinction between a copier itself and something that can play the result. That's literally the entire point of our piracy rules. XBMC doesn't allow copying, but does allow playing. If you can't get that distinction, there's no real reason in having the rest of the conversation in the first place.

I do get it, so I expect that last sentence was directed at the other poster?

It was sort of just a follow-up to your point in agreement.

(2014-09-21, 01:19)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]It was sort of just a follow-up to your point in agreement.

Understood

(2014-09-20, 23:15)FailBoatSailsOn Wrote: [ -> ]

(2014-09-20, 23:09)natethomas Wrote: [ -> ]Are you talking about this thread: http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=204723 ?

I didn't personally trash it, but it explicitly mentioned navi-x and mashup, which I presume is why it got trashed. Had nothing to do with the rom emulator.

Yes, that's the thread I was referencing. I never used or even heard of those other two plug-ins so rom emulation was the only real red flag I can see it being trashed for. Still, having the Garbage Bin as publicly viewable sucks. I don't know how professional Team Kodi wants to be but tarring and feathering is rather immature, isn't it?

And of course the one who trashed the thread just told me to get a life... how mature.

We specifically decided to have a time frame where such threads were still viewable before being permanently deleted, because people often didn't understand why their threads where deleted. It also shows other people what types of threads are not acceptable, since such threads about things like mashup and navi-x are specifically problematic on our forum. So far it has been far more effective than simply deleting the threads and having no trace of them. We've tried both in the past.

We do a similar thing with GPL violators who don't respect open source code. We have a public list where we put companies who have violated the GPL, and in that case it is specifically about shaming them. You might call it immature, we call it educating people about what companies disrespect the GPL and the open source software attached to it. The end result? Every single company has apologized, fixed their infractions, and gotten their name removed. I'm happy to say that the list is currently empty.