XBMC's Piracy Stance: Draft

  Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Post Reply
dmdsoftware Offline
Posting Freak
Posts: 1,192
Joined: Sep 2013
Reputation: 45
Post: #391
Time to close up my cloud services plugins on this forum. Somehow they "piracy" when all they do is provide ability for users to log into their own account on the cloud service and access content in their account.
find quote
jjd-uk Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 6,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 152
Post: #392
(2017-06-11 14:22)dmdsoftware Wrote:  Time to close up my cloud services plugins on this forum. Somehow they "piracy" when all they do is provide ability for users to log into their own account on the cloud service and access content in their account.

If that's all it did was access users own accounts then that would be ok, however it's mentioned on the first post being able to access public url's, and if those public url's contain media content then that could be viewed as publicly publishing content that you don't have permission to do so from the copyright owner. However as you've rightly been pointed out we need to apply rules consistently across all similar add-on's/scripts.
(This post was last modified: 2017-06-11 18:06 by jjd-uk.)
find quote
trogggy Offline
Posting Freak
Posts: 2,811
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 132
Location: Monthou sur Cher, France
Post: #393
(2017-06-11 18:05)jjd-uk Wrote:  If that's all it did was access users own accounts then that would be ok, however it's mentioned on the first post being able to access public url's, and if those public url's contain media content then that could be viewed as publicly publishing content that you don't have permission to do so from the copyright owner. However as you've rightly been pointed out we need to apply rules consistently across all similar add-on's/scripts.
Does that mean it's okay or it's not okay? I've re-read the above a few times and am still none the wiser.
find quote
Dangelus Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 1,999
Joined: Jan 2012
Reputation: 27
Location: United Kingdom
Post: #394
(2017-06-11 18:26)trogggy Wrote:  
(2017-06-11 18:05)jjd-uk Wrote:  If that's all it did was access users own accounts then that would be ok, however it's mentioned on the first post being able to access public url's, and if those public url's contain media content then that could be viewed as publicly publishing content that you don't have permission to do so from the copyright owner. However as you've rightly been pointed out we need to apply rules consistently across all similar add-on's/scripts.
Does that mean it's okay or it's not okay? I've re-read the above a few times and am still none the wiser.

The thread has been restored. It was flagged up as a violation but upon further information coming to light and a team discussion it was deemed not to be the case. Apologies for any inconvenience caused.

Always read the Kodi online-manual, FAQ and search the forum before posting.
Read/follow the forum rules.
find quote
jjd-uk Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 6,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 152
Post: #395
(2017-06-11 18:26)trogggy Wrote:  
(2017-06-11 18:05)jjd-uk Wrote:  If that's all it did was access users own accounts then that would be ok, however it's mentioned on the first post being able to access public url's, and if those public url's contain media content then that could be viewed as publicly publishing content that you don't have permission to do so from the copyright owner. However as you've rightly been pointed out we need to apply rules consistently across all similar add-on's/scripts.
Does that mean it's okay or it's not okay? I've re-read the above a few times and am still none the wiser.

It means we haven't reached a final decision yet, as it was pointed out that urlresolver acts in a very similar way, and that is obviously deemed as legitimate for the moment since it resides in the official repo, so while urlresolver is allowed then in all likelihood Cloudstream will be as well. We are discussing internally to make sure we are completely consistent in how the rules are applied and that all add-on's get treated equally whether in official repo or not.
(This post was last modified: 2017-06-11 18:43 by jjd-uk.)
find quote
trogggy Offline
Posting Freak
Posts: 2,811
Joined: Mar 2011
Reputation: 132
Location: Monthou sur Cher, France
Post: #396
If accessing public url's is now an issue I really don't understand the rules any more. Ho hum.
find quote
jjd-uk Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 6,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 152
Post: #397
It's a slightly grey area.

If you don't own the copyright then you shouldn't publish a open public url for accessing that content, if it's content you own stored on a cloud service which needs your account credentials to access then that is ok.
(This post was last modified: 2017-06-11 19:20 by jjd-uk.)
find quote
jjd-uk Offline
Team-Kodi Member
Posts: 6,191
Joined: Oct 2011
Reputation: 152
Post: #398
There's also a difference between allowing a user to access any publicly available url, and a service that actively identifies media files on file locker sites then presents the user a list of those media files.
find quote
Post Reply