Now We Know Why Amazon Has Rejected Kodi
#46
If you need the one sentence summary of what this discussion is about --

"Do people have to be forced to sign license agreements they dont read, so we have a contractual crowbar to remove them and their benefactors, if we dont like their behavior, as a premise before being able to use any software (, on any device), that is deemed "fit for distribution" by the part of the debating team that very much thinks this is how it should have worked all along - but never was democratically elected." "No we certainly never would abuse this power."

Now do the Bella thing of "oh the corporate overlord is so dreamy and misunderstood", maybe if I glitter myself up a bit, ...

No, no, do the Bella thing and become an activist and promote social change for the perceived legality of open source software, by distributing flyers, oh wait - its just Amazon that conceptualizes it as "illegal". And they dont get challenged.

No, no - do the Bella thing of "shut, uo, shut the H-E-DOUBLEHOCKEYSTICKS up, you bad man - nothing has happened, nothing has happened at all".

There, I've made a fable out of it for you.

And don't forget, Bella has to be able to marry Edward in the end. Or grow up.

Happily ever after, and so on...
Reply
#47
are you talking to yourself?

imo this thread is derailing from the topic and will be closed if this continues.
Read/follow the forum rules.
For troubleshooting and bug reporting, read this first
Interested in seeing some YouTube videos about Kodi? Go here and subscribe
Reply
#48
Ok just a simple answer to a simple question:

Why is their no Banned Addon Policy front and centre on the Kodi.tv webpage ?

A front and centre Piracy Policy is long overdue as well if you seriously want to distance yourselves from the current negative headlines.

This "Oh but we have a banned Addons Wiki page" is doing nothing whatsoever to distance Kodi from illegal Piracy streaming addons. Its clear that Kodi is not at all, if by intended or unintended consequences distancing themselves from such Add-Ons and from this point on will likely be associated with them.

All I ask is that the Kodi Team please consider doing more in light of the current Amazon situation.
This sitting on the fence policy may be great for the principles of Open Source Software but it will be of little use if you loose the public relations war against the content gatekeepers.

Reply
#49
As far as I have understood it - Kodi is out to get its naming rights under wraps and then wants to threaten smaller sellers with legal action if they use their name in unison with promoting piracy. Which is possible, because the sellers are a distinct group that can be addressed.

To get back on Amazons good side. The odd point being, that Amazon already declared them persona non grata ("please dont submit again") - i dont know what Amazons PR is telling them, but to me - this can only be considered proactive for what might happen on the next store, and on the next, and on the next, ..

They arent willing to break from that stance:
https://torrentfreak.com/xbmckodi-target...rs-141101/

And it is understandable - because if you hang the "solve the illegal use problem for all of us first" sash over any open source project, they could all close down tomorrow and software development could only take place in house, or under the protecting wing (legal protection) from a major company.

General purpose software isnt illegal. What Amazon did was to a large extent anticompetitive and entirely autocratic. Amazons move probably also wasnt triggered by image, but by popularity. (They track app use, they pay authors by "pages read", must I continue...?)

But they (Kodi) also arent willing to go forward as software developers and proclaim an attack on open software - an attack. This creates a perception problem.

I think the notion, that Kodi isnt doing enough as an entity to react to the image Amazon is building, is entirely right. The big elephant in the room is Amazons reaction. Amazon cemented Kodis image as "soliciting illegal use", and to a large extent they even created it. Fighting against that, by not touching the elephant in the room... Will be a real challenge.

Lets say that after a year of them actively taking down the Fire TV ebay listings - Amazon still does nothing (which would be in their core interest) at which point does the Kodi team have the discussion that the energy would have been better focused on upholding the principal of general purpose software? Having a discussion about what Amazon is sacrificing here.

This is also what my odd comparison above tried to touch on - at which point does the Kodi project realize that Amazon might actually not come back? They have PLEX to put on their storefront, they are fine. And with not talking about the real issue, they (Kodi) might have actively created a precedent against themselves.

One that can be copied by any other company at will - because the reaction to Amazon in effect outlawing popular media players, when they get too popular - was largely unfocused, and pretty weak. As long as one piracy listing survives, this process can be repeated over and over again. And why wouldnt it?

Kodi will never make money for Amazon, they eliminated it from the App Store at no cost. Reinstating it also wouldnt benefit them in any way - if there is the side story of "you can always sideload it" going. The only cost to them would be to concentrate on the public contract they just broke - that media players cant be declared "soliciting illegal use", because if they could - Amazon themselves would have to close down the site for a week and start filtering through their product offerings. Maybe start with all those Smart enabled TVs, ...

This was always a play about publicly held images, that never should have gotten the "maybe they really didnt know better" label. I have to put this out, so in ten years time, I can still come here and benefit from this community.
Reply
#50
After reading the Torrentfreak article and the XBMC Foundation takedown requests it appear to be a Game of Whack a Mole if you ask me. How many of the sellers do you smack down for XBMC trademark violations before another pops up in its place and the process repeats ad infinitum.

You then have sellers on Amazon, Alibaba etc etc. How much Policing do the XBMC Foundation actually want to do of XBMC/Kodi trademark violations across the entire internet ? Its clearly impossible.

Look the Genie is out of the bottle due to XBMC/Kodi's Open Source nature. Spend some time reading articles on Torrentfreak and you will soon come to realise that a serious concerted effort is being made by Hollywood worldwide to destroy the business models of Copyright Infringers and Piracy Websites and Software that facilitates the use of such websites. Especially if that Software is hosted on Mainstream consumer websites that actually sell Hollywood content as well.
Even 3rd party companies like the Dallas Buyers Club LLC are being cross-hired to target individuals and organisations so Hollywood's hands are seen to remain tucked away from the dirty business of extorting, bullying and suing people.
Smart PR if you ask me.

Internet filter legislation has recently been enacted into law here in my own country of Australia, similar to the UK model and others countries Worldwide. I expect it will not be long before a website named Kodi.tv will be put on a blacklist that will only be accessible through a VPN, such is the power of the Hollywood gatekeepers of content.

Its time to have a serious re-think about those Add-ons on the Banned add-on list and the ease of addition and use with the mainline Kodi code. You already have a published Wiki list so the line has already been drawn in the sand of what is acceptable and what is not.
Use that list for some actual positive Kodi spin instead of just paying it lip service.

Reply
#51
(2015-06-22, 20:17)wrxtasy Wrote: I expect it will not be long before a website named Kodi.tv will be put on a blacklist that will only be accessible through a VPN, such is the power of the Hollywood gatekeepers of content.
This is ridiculous.
Under Australian law a court would have to be shown that kodi.tv has the "primary purpose" of facilitating copyright infringement.
That isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Kodi.tv won't even be on the radar.
Reply
#52
They might have a chance at eliminating the sellers that are associating Kodi with illegal use, because they are largely on ebay (which owns an important internet payment system) and they need reputation to be "trusted sellers" - so taking them down actually takes less effort than for them to get up and selling again. But Amazon could have done the same (its Fire TVs that are sold), and they chose not to.

(Also can there be something like "trusted culture"? You know how it would look like...)

In the end, this is just a gesture, that no company has to acknowledge - if we havent made this a discussion about on what grounds media players are declared "soliciting illegal use" here.

For starters. Amazon is selling a device called "Kindle". I could use their distribution infrastructure today to get daily delivered siterips of newspapers and even pirated books - if I cared - purpose delivered, over the air, always up to date -- in seconds. Is this "soliciting illegal use"?

Thats why it is so important to have them voice a public statement as to why they removed Kodi. Not via a prewritten template, but the factual moment they use as an argument. Thats, what we currently dont have.
Reply
#53
(2015-06-22, 16:45)wrxtasy Wrote: Ok just a simple answer to a simple question:

Why is their no Banned Addon Policy front and centre on the Kodi.tv webpage ?

A front and centre Piracy Policy is long overdue as well if you seriously want to distance yourselves from the current negative headlines.

This "Oh but we have a banned Addons Wiki page" is doing nothing whatsoever to distance Kodi from illegal Piracy streaming addons. Its clear that Kodi is not at all, if by intended or unintended consequences distancing themselves from such Add-Ons and from this point on will likely be associated with them.

All I ask is that the Kodi Team please consider doing more in light of the current Amazon situation.
This sitting on the fence policy may be great for the principles of Open Source Software but it will be of little use if you loose the public relations war against the content gatekeepers.

Jesus, no. We will never do that. That's like walking around with a shirt on that says "I'm not a rapist". I'm not even a fan of the list on the wiki, because it's basically giving people a list of add-ons to look for.

No, you don't fight an image by legitimizing it front and center. We've already been doing "more", and just because Amazon was a shit about something doesn't mean we have to kick it up a notch. That's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't actually look at the real situation. At the same time this happens Google approves us, Nvidia, Dell, and other major companies are working with us. This is not a losing battle just because some Amazon manager made the wrong call about an app store that doesn't even matter.

And finally, our principals come first, no exceptions. I'd rather be seen as a pirate or a rapist than to be a sellout.
Reply
#54
What arguments will they have if Kodi adds the exact same method that Amazon use for discouraging "unknown sources"? => http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/d...=201482620

These disclaimers is what Google have working of for Android, read => https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2812853 and => http://developer.android.com/distribute/...ution.html

Again guys, please checkout this very related feature request about adding warnings in Kodi and read the related discussion here => http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=229648

(2015-06-23, 10:35)RockerC Wrote:
(2015-06-23, 07:57)mkortstiege Wrote: I think install from zip shouldn't be there by default and should be handled like it's on Android.
Exactly, the option to install addons/repos from ZIP files wouldn't even be seen in the GUI until the user gone into expert mode and enabled the "Unknown sources" option under settings.

These is also the arguments from Amazon and Google as you can read here

http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/d...=201482620

https://support.google.com/accounts/answer/2812853

Enable Unknown Sources

To install app stores that are not initially present on your device, Android requires you to enable the "Unknown Sources" setting. This allows you to download apps and games from sources other than Google to your mobile device.

Note: Any time you're using the Internet, you should take care to download content only from sources that you know (such as Amazon). Amazon only downloads apps and games that you've intentionally purchased to your device.

To enable the Unknown Sources setting:
  1. During the installation process for Amazon Appstore, follow the on-screen prompts to enable Unknown Sources. For more information about installing the Amazon Appstore app, go to Install Amazon Appstore for Android.
  2. The Amazon app for Android will walk you through enabling this setting before you get your first app from the Apps & Games department.
  3. To access the Unknown Sources setting directly, press the menu icon or button from the Home screen and tap Settings. Select Security (Android OS 4.0+) or Applications (Android OS 3.0 and earlier). You may need to scroll down to see the Unknown Sources setting.


Google describes it better on the Android development documentation here

http://developer.android.com/distribute/...ution.html

User Opt-In for Apps from Unknown Sources

Figure 2. Users must enable the Unknown sources setting before they can install apps not downloaded from Google Play.

Android protects users from inadvertent download and install of apps from locations other than Google Play (which is trusted). It blocks such installs until the user opts-in Unknown sources in Settings > Security, shown in Figure 2. Users need to make this configuration change before they download your apps to their devices.

Note that some network providers don’t allow users to install applications from unknown sources.


Image Image

Image
Reply
#55
Please don't spam the other thread. Thanks.
Always read the online manual (wiki), FAQ (wiki) and search the forum before posting.
Do not PM or e-mail Team-Kodi members directly asking for support. Read/follow the forum rules (wiki).
Please read the pages on troubleshooting (wiki) and bug reporting (wiki) before reporting issues.
Reply
#56
(2015-06-22, 20:38)trogggy Wrote:
(2015-06-22, 20:17)wrxtasy Wrote: I expect it will not be long before a website named Kodi.tv will be put on a blacklist that will only be accessible through a VPN, such is the power of the Hollywood gatekeepers of content.
This is ridiculous.
Under Australian law a court would have to be shown that kodi.tv has the "primary purpose" of facilitating copyright infringement.
That isn't going to happen in the foreseeable future. Kodi.tv won't even be on the radar.
I tell you what is ridiculous, having a law with such terms such a "primary purpose" and "facilitation" that are not strictly defined, with the potential to indirectly block any number of unrelated websites. By not defining such terms, the law is so broad in its scope that it can indiscriminately block completely legitimate websites, such as Dropbox and MEGA that may be hosting illegal files. Even Media players like Kodi would not be beyond inclusion when using such broad terms.
Media companies are savvy and with deep pockets and can influence the Political process.

Reply
#57
Primary purpose doesn't need a lot of definition. Neither does facilitation.
The main (first, primary) purpose of the kodi website is obviously not to facilitate (defined in the dictionary) copyright infringement. Nobody would argue that, and if they did they'd look bloody silly in front of a court.
It isn't an issue. It might (arguably) have been 2 or 3 years ago.
'Even Media players like Kodi would not be beyond inclusion when using such broad terms' is already a long way from 'I expect it will not be long before a website named Kodi.tv will be put on a blacklist', which is what you originally wrote.
Reply
#58
@ troggy > Which Website do you think the Kodi Media player actually originates from then ?

(2015-06-23, 00:25)Ned Scott Wrote: I'm not even a fan of the list on the Wiki, because it's basically giving people a list of add-ons to look for.

No, you don't fight an image by legitimizing it front and center. We've already been doing "more", and just because Amazon was a shit about something doesn't mean we have to kick it up a notch. That's a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't actually look at the real situation.
I will re-iterate Kodi DOES have a Addon Image problem that will affect it going into the Future, let me give a practical example beyond the minor Amazon issue.
A "real world" basic google search for the terms "Kodi Addons"

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=kodi+addons

The first five links all contain mentions of Kodi Banned addons facilitating Piracy, Even YouTube instructions on how to install them for god sake. If the Kodi Team do not think this is a Public Relations nightmare, well then something is wrong.
(2015-06-23, 00:25)Ned Scott Wrote: Google approves us, Nvidia, Dell, and other major companies are working with us...
Until they get tapped on the shoulder, by a change in Company Business Practices or pressured by external parties due to the widely viewed Public example I have given above.

The Banned Add-on policy either up front or I would think the more preferable behind the scenes (in the Kodi source code or Repo interrogation) needs a rethink.

Why give Media distribution companies any lame excuse to remove the Kodi App from their stores ? Which in the end may seem minor to the Kodi Team but actually does inconvenience some end users who are also part of the broader Kodi community.

Reply
#59
(2015-06-23, 14:12)wrxtasy Wrote: @ troggy > Which Website do you think the Kodi Media player actually originates from then ?
Is that a serious question?

You can talk about 'kodi add-ons' all you like. It's quite possible that some of the sites linked to infringing add-ons could be targeted under that legislation.
But I'll repeat myself...

Under Australian law a court would have to be shown that kodi.tv has the "primary purpose" of facilitating copyright infringement.

That is clearly not the main purpose of this website. No lawyer would take a look at it and decide it was worth targeting. No court would take him / her seriously if they did.
This is just scaremongering.
Reply
#60
I applaud you for having such a confident view of likely legal outcomes moving forward into the Future, especially when legislation can be revisited and revised in 18 months to suit the political will at that time.

Thankfully there are positive moves afoot by members of the Kodi Team looking to hopefully address Kodi PR concerns and unofficial addon issues.
That is an encouraging sign. Smile

Reply



Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Now We Know Why Amazon Has Rejected Kodi1
This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.