[ZaPHoN]

It is unfortunate that we lose this freedom, but necessary.

XBMC is too good and too important to risk aligning itself with piracy.

Take the offending pluggins and support to a safer place http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page and then I'm sure it keeps xbmc in the clear.

Remember, public web is no longer safe for the commons because of corporate manipulation of governments.

Soon a p2pdns system will be available too.

xbmc cannot die and nor can we complain for the devs playing it safe.

[natethomas]

But what the heck happened with the anti-DRM attitude? Shouldn't that be included in the forum rules?

Um. No? Why would it be? These rules are entirely about piracy and downloading/uploading. DRM has nothing to do with piracy, downloading, or uploading. If you are going to propose additions or subtractions to the rules, please explain how they affect the title of the rules "XBMC's Official Forum Piracy Stance." If they do not, please refrain from bringing up off topic discussions.

[Ned Scott]

@Robotica:

Why would forum policies be useless because there was no typed, framed, formal decree from "the Foundation"? We are saying "if you do this, we warn you then we ban you". It's a statement of fact. You can shout that it's useless or meaningless all you want, and people will still be banned for breaking the rules we set.

I've cut down what I replied to you to stay somewhat on topic to this thread:

(did you actually refer to that GUI manifesto?)

That is the general XBMC project manifesto. This manifesto was formalized during that whole XBMC/Plex split thing.

What does the GPL means while having a piracy stance like the one proposed?

Some people seem to think the GPL is a copyright license for software code. Some people think the GPL is a religion. I'm not going to get into that debate, but I honestly don't see "GPL" and "no piracy discussion rule" as conflicting.

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.

Richard Stallmann actually has a very different view on creative works than he does for software code. While he believes all software code should be free, he thinks it's perfectly justifiable and okay to hold tight/restrictive copyrights on media/creative works. For example, he thinks the code in a video game should be free, but the graphics, sound, character scripts ("cut-scenes") that tell the story, and other creative elements can all be all-rights-reserved-up-the-arse.

No one has been banned (yet). This is no different than when we tell people in the iOS forum that xbmc.org isn't a place to get jailbreaking help. It's always been that certain topics are allowed and certain topics aren't. Are you going to start complaining about open source philosophy because you can't start a thread about Angry Birds on the forums?

- How will addons handled that break EULA's?

We don't really care about EULAs. If a given EULA has any legal weight then that still would be a separate issue. I believe it's something along the lines of breaking a contract rather than copyright infringement. That being said, most EULAs are not enforceable by law, even if a company claims they are.

- Why doesn't this stance become effective once the domain name is transfered to the foundation?

Why should it? That's a totally unrelated matter that just appears to be happening at the same time. The discussion about allowing add-on discussion for things like IceFilms has been happening for months, if not years.

- 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.

Really not sure where you are going with this one, but I'll take a stab at it:

Again, this has nothing to do with SOPA.

No one is using the term "inappropriate use".

Last time I checked we do not allow racial hatred, pedophiliac content, or incitements to violence. Feel free to link me to the "Rape black babies and smash their heads into walls Add-on" discussion thread and I'll close it.


tl;dr- you can disagree that we have the ability to make rules like this all you want, but it still won't change anything.

[ralob]

I understand why the Team needs to draft such a policy; CYA and all that. I have no problem with it.

I only hope that the new site being created by the community (or some other method if that doesn't work out) becomes well-known enough to keep people aware of all the add-ons. It would be a shame if some of the more popular ones died out due to users not knowing about them.

I really can't pass full judgement until we see how all this unfolds. Knowing Team XBMC and having been around here for a long time, I have confidence that everything will work out one way or another.

[Robotica]

I recon the GPL by itself is just a license. But when you steward the software from within a charity foundation, there is a moral stance. You can read it in the Foundations mission. While you’re at it, you can also see that board members or any other person involved, are unaccountable for the software; only for operating the Foundation. So when those policies are made by teamXBMC, there is no formal relation between the Foundation and the policies.

That by itself is no problem for me. The shits hits the fan when this happens within a Foundation, representing it’s community, while not being open. In those kind of organizations, the Board is not answerable to the participants, and the participants have no say or control at all over how the organization is managed or evolves; To act on behalf of it’s community, some degree of transparency is needed. And the invitation-only way of being open is self-perpetuating since there are neither a letter of in-cooperation nor bylaws published. Believe it or not, this is an hot topic in FOSS-world. And yes, Wikipedia is an absurd project related to policies but some basics should be covered and be in the open (the apache way is considered the best standard for community driven projects like xbmc).

Now there is a situation where Board-members have control (even by Boxee representatives!) without being accountable to it’s community. The past of xbmc and many other FOSS projects showed what can happen in this scenario.

Community leaders prefer sweeping the dust under the carpet rather than try to be open and solve those problems. Instead of dealing with my concerns, they ban the messenger.

[Robotica]

I recon the GPL by itself is just a license. But when you steward the software from within a charity foundation, there is a moral stance. You can read it in the Foundations mission. While you’re at it, you can also see that board members or any other person involved, are unaccountable for the software; only for operating the Foundation. So when those policies are made by teamXBMC, there is no formal relation between the Foundation and the policies.

That by itself is no problem for me. The shits hits the fan when this happens within a Foundation, representing it’s community, while not being open. In those kind of organizations, the Board is not answerable to the participants, and the participants have no say or control at all over how the organization is managed or evolves; To act on behalf of it’s community, some degree of transparency is needed. And the invitation-only way of being open is self-perpetuating since there are neither a letter of in-cooperation nor bylaws published. Believe it or not, this is an hot topic in FOSS-world. And yes, Wikipedia is an absurd project related to policies but some basics should be covered and be in the open (the apache way is considered the best standard for community driven projects like xbmc).

Now there is a situation where Board-members have control (even by Boxee representatives!) without being accountable to it’s community. The past of xbmc and many other FOSS projects showed what can happen in this scenario.

Community leaders prefer sweeping the dust under the carpet rather than try to be open and solve those problems. Instead of dealing with my concerns, they ban the messenger.

[natethomas]

Robotica, literally all of the documents you are looking for are published online as a matter of record in the great state of Delaware. It is not our job to find them for you. Bans don't happen because users disagree. Bans happen because users absolutely refuse to stay on topic. This is your last warning. I don't want a reply to this warning. I don't want a reply that deals with the philosophical thought processes of the GPL. If you reply to this thread, I want comments on ways to directly improve the proposed rules. You have a choice. You can not reply. You can reply on topic. Or you can reply off topic and be banned. Smart decisions are good decisions.

[DDDamian]

I for one would rather that XBMC not be a martyr to free-for-all or try to carry some kind of banner that exposes it to risk. It is a media player at heart - it is the users' responsibility that their media is legally obtained or take the risk associated with anti-piracy laws.

Team XBMC, do whatever you feel is necessary to keep this software out of the iceberg zone and let the Titanic go where it may. In better words, as others have said, it's too good to risk, and of course the team has the right (and obligation) to protect it.

[ashlar]

Natethomas, I strongly disagree with the tone and content of your last message here. The fact a user raises a wider argument doens't automatically makes it off-topic. Discussions evolve.

Also, as a community manager, I think that yes, if not for Robotica, for other users part of your job would be a clear, concise, to the point response to his accusations. You refuse to discuss politics on a matter that *clearly* derives from politics.

[natethomas]

Ashlar, Robotica has been discussing this same topic for literally 2 and 1/2 years now in various guises. The second a team member creates a thread, Robotica will hound that team member and every other team member about the "shady" practices of the Foundation, until the thread has absolutely nothing to do with the original post. I give leeway to EVERYONE. Some believe I give too much leeway. I don't give 2 and 1/2 years worth of leeway. It's simply not worth the aggravation. At some point you just have to accept that a person is trolling and there's nothing that can be done about it.

[rogerthis]

Is this a piracy stance or an icefilms stance? It is very disingenuous to only close the icefilms addons and leave the rest open. Either have a piracy stance or an icefilms stance.
I can understand your frustration when icefilms website is down, that one post wonders will post all over the xbmc.org. But you know that this isn't going to stop, unless you change the name of the project to xbmcNOTicefilms.org. Of have stickies on every sub forum, icefilms is banned.

[Jimmer]

I personally don't get the problem. The team need to limit their exposure to harm, so they put in a policy to cover themselves. Seems simple.

I see one or two cooler heads recognising this need. And things were already moving this way on the forum with the way atv2 jailbreaking discussions were being handled.

Nobody's stopping anyone using any addons. Full-stop.

I also think it's massively OTT to expect the foundation to relocate from Delaware to e.g. Sweden. When it's a much easier and more elegant solution to expect piracy driven addons to find a new home! It will cost the addons nothing to relocate (they already have a community provided home springing up within a week), what would be the potential cost of relocating the foundation trans-nationally? Seems like lawyers fees are pretty high!

It's time this was looked at dispassionately as the necessary step that it is. Then accepted as a matter of fact. We're all grown ups, after all?

Just my 2p

Jim

[natethomas]

Is this a piracy stance or an icefilms stance? It is very disingenuous to only close the icefilms addons and leave the rest open. Either have a piracy stance or an icefilms stance.
I can understand your frustration when icefilms website is down, that one post wonders will post all over the xbmc.org. But you know that this isn't going to stop, unless you change the name of the project to xbmcNOTicefilms.org. Of have stickies on every sub forum, icefilms is banned.

Very few addons directly list and download/stream pirated content. That's the simple fact. To my knowledge, at least three addons that do this have been closed with a fairly prominent "If you want to keep talking, feel free. Here is a place that we are not in any way responsible for to do so" sign. That's pretty much the best we can do. If you happen to see more whose only purpose is to both list AND download/stream pirated content, and don't fall within the outlined exceptions, feel free to point them out.

[rogerthis]

This guide in the wiki by http://wiki.xbmc.org/index.php?title=HOW...s_for_XBMC by Voinage. It is a howto guide on getting movies from a closed down piracy site.

The original fastpasstv plugin
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=40877&page=2

fastpasstv T3
http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=114644

navi-x
Has icefilms built into in, and plenty of other content.

[macf1an]

again?! really?