+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Kodi related discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: XBMC's Piracy Stance: Draft (/showthread.php?tid=117995)
- Robotica - 2012-01-04
TugboatBill Wrote:Since XBMC is a volunteer project and you seem to feel that having a foundation mission statement/etc is so important, why not volunteer to assist in coming up with one?
I made (and shared) one 2 years ago but above all, they already are made since they are used for applying for the tax-exempt status and for setting up the Foundation to begin with....
- FishOil - 2012-01-04
Who is John Galt?
- Robotica - 2012-01-04
On more comment: Using policies like the proposed there also should be some sanctions like on doom9 forum.
- rogerthis - 2012-01-04
Is there any plan on when these addons will be closed on xmbc.org?
Tomorrow, next week, next month. A time scale would be good, it will help for the transition.
Also what's on the list apart from icefilms? navi-x?
Is there going to be a name and shame so people can get ready to move?
- macf1an - 2012-01-05
I can't understand why is Navi-X constantly being brought to the topic? It is clearly not piracy-oriented by design. Just look at the list of legit site scrapers maintained by the devs.. only icefilms is the odd one out in there.
Maybe it's time for a clear definition because "if it looks like a rat - it is a rat" just doesn't cut it..
- rogerthis - 2012-01-05
macf1an Wrote:I can't understand why is Navi-X constantly being brought to the topic? It is clearly not piracy-oriented by design. Just look at the list of legit site scrapers maintained by the devs.. only icefilms is the odd one out in there.
Maybe it's time for a clear definition because "if it looks like a rat - it is a rat" just doesn't cut it..
You got to be joking right? There was always plenty of movies\tv shows sources to be got, before they added icefilms.
- natethomas - 2012-01-05
The rules are pretty explicit. We start with the presumption that EVERYTHING not put up by the content owner is against the rules. That we carve out massive exceptions. I have literally no knowledge of Navi-X, but for those who know about it, if it falls under one of the exceptions (for example, if it can be used for software that is being streamed by the content owner [e.g. bluecop repo], or if it can be used to download legally acquired software [e.g. torrent downloader], or if there is some sort of fair use exception argument to be made [e.g. fanart.tv]) then it is fine. I highly recommend reading the rules and trying to understand them, before asking what they mean.
- natethomas - 2012-01-05
See page 1 for updates on when the rules will go into effect and slight changes to the wording.
- macf1an - 2012-01-05
rogerthis Wrote:You got to be joking right? There was always plenty of movies\tv shows sources to be got, before they added icefilms.
Guess what? The very same can be done in youtube too! But is this the main intent of it? I believe that should be considered when the moderator is evaluating an add-on. Navi-X has it's own support forum so it wouldn't even feel being locked out of this one but it's a principles game ..
From where I'm standing - Navi-X is clearly a 4B.
- Ned Scott - 2012-01-05
Robotica Wrote:It is strange since a (charity) Foundations implies shared vision and needs. Not knowing those, and start drawing policies just doesn't make any sense. Wikimedia can do so since their Foundation is nicely operating in the open.
http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_manifesto
Quote:From there, they delegated some policies to their community.
Some? These are the only policies that the WikiMedia Foundation has made: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
While the Wikipedia community (just on the English Wikipedia) handles 57 policies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_policy ) and over 150 guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_guidelines ). The community is by far a self governing system that rarely requires input from the Foundation before making or changing rules.
Quote:The "there is no time"-argument is being told for already 2+ years....
There's time, but no one wants to do it. It's boring. Still has noting to do with forum rules.
- Ned Scott - 2012-01-05
RichH Wrote:What would also be worth doing is having a standard legal disclaimer that all add-ons have to accept before they are added to the official repository. Something along the lines of, use of this add-on within XBMC is to be used for the accessing and viewing off material in line with any copyright that is in control of that material. As has been mentioned some add-ons that pull down torrents can be used for legal and illegal material. To expect the XBMC Team to manage the situation of what could potentially be used to obtain any illegal content is almost impossible.
All add-ons must pass these rules to be added to the official repo, so that's more or less already there; http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Official_add-on_repository#Repository_guidelines
- RichH - 2012-01-05
Ned Scott Wrote:All add-ons must pass these rules to be added to the official repo, so that's more or less already there; http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=Official_add-on_repository#Repository_guidelines
I may of badly put it across, it was more at the person who uses the add-on. In the example of an add-on that can download a torrent file. The intended add-on could of been added within XBMC to be used to obtain material that is not copyright protected. But it could be used to obtain material which would break copyright rules. The disclaimer as such was a advisory note to the end user that the add-on was in XBMC only for the use in the obtaining material that is legal and that any copyright should be taken into consideration. You could call it an acceptable use policy for the add-on (in fact have it as a default for all add-ons), even make it that it has to be accepted before it downloads to the XBMC Client.
That would be more of a protection for the XBMC Team, as you accept there is the possibility that the add-on could be used for reasons other than it is intended for and have added a note advising that it should not be. I guess it all depends how much you want to cover your collective rears, should someone want to try and take some form of action against XBMC.
- Robotica - 2012-01-06
Ned Scott Wrote:http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=XBMC_manifesto
Some? These are the only policies that the WikiMedia Foundation has made: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Policies
While the Wikipedia community (just on the English Wikipedia) handles 57 policies ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_policy ) and over 150 guidelines ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_guidelines ). The community is by far a self governing system that rarely requires input from the Foundation before making or changing rules.
There's time, but no one wants to do it. It's boring. Still has noting to do with forum rules.
@ned Scott:
If you want to have a total distrubuted control without central control, GIThub and a forum and a wiki in a country who respect freedom of speech (EU countries like Sweden and the Netherlands) will be sufficient. But the choice was made (by the guys who gained access to millions of dollars via Boxee) to setup this charity Foundation in the US of A.
This (running a community project within a charity foundation) involves a level of co-ordination and process that goes far beyond what you can do at GitHub, whether you like it or not. Proposed piracy policy is a good example of the consequences.
It is nice to see the community put some efforts in drawing the Manifesto and an up to date member page but all policies drawn by teamXBMC (and the community at large) are useless since formally there is no relation between teamXBMC and the XBMC Foundation.
The first thing to understand is that the XBMC Foundation is not only open source projects, frameworks or code libraries. The Foundation is a tax-exempt public charity for a variety of philanthropic reasons. It’s not owning the code; it’s only supporting/empowering it for those philanthropic reasons, supported by it’s mission. Strangely, those are not public (did you actually refer to that GUI manifesto?) while they are used for applying for the tax-exempt status and setting up the Foundation in the first place. Besides, throwing a Foundation at a GPL community created software project means more ways (beside copyright) of controlling a project. Nothing is done to justify that while xbmc codebase is fully legal. Maybe some downsteam projects are in danger in some countries but not xbmc.
What does the GPL means while having a piracy stance like the one proposed? This real discussion is totally avoided and R. Stallmann (and the whole Free / Open Everything Movement) normally are using the word sharing (and more related to the forum: freedom of expression) instead of facilitating piracy. I think about the banned software devs which also are creators. How free are they within this community? Not is as free as stated in teamXBMC manifesto, saying XBMC is based on the ideas of FOSS.
If there is no moral stance overhere?
Also following point:
- How will addons handled that break EULA's?
- Why doesn't this stance become effective once the domain name is transfered to the foundation?
- Doesn't inappropriate use cover a broader definition than piracy? It's not just copyright laws like SOPA you have to apply to. Also calling for racial hatred, video of pedo-pornographic nature, Incitement to violence and any other content that violates the laws) is.
- davilla - 2012-01-06
@Robotica; getting very off topic now. this thread is about " XBMC's Piracy Stance: Draft" and not a sounding board about XBMC's Foundation.
I've banned you once for taking over threads for your personal sounding board and I'll do it again if you keep it up. You have been warned. Start a new thread and you can discuss this to your hearts content but not here, nor in any thread that does not contain that content already.
- Robotica - 2012-01-06
How can I go off topic in a discussion about community/forum/discussion rules (or any other form of policies) if there is no description of what this community is? I believe this topic, is off topic and I tried saving it from dwelling away from it's essence. But my point is made and maybe I open another topic.
But what the heck happened with the anti-DRM attitude? Shouldn't that be included in the forum rules?