•   
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • 40
  •   
Call to Arms: Combatting Trademark Infringement
#61
Just to play devil's advocate on the logo. http://www.kaseya.com/
Reply
#62
(2016-02-12, 00:37)keith Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:12)metalkettle Wrote: That is true. Surely some of the Addons in the official repo do not have explicit permission from the source.

The addons in the official repo, as far as we're aware, get their content directly from the source. IE: SyFy streams from their own website and we're not pulling ripped copies off some janky website.

While we haven't got explicit permission, it typically falls under fair use because of the source.

Much of this boils down to 'intent'. Our addon and their website has the exact same intent: to promote media in a safe and legal way, which views are counted by the respective owners of the content and if they are setup correctly, showing the ads associated, just like on the website. We will not allow addons in our repo that intentionally block ads, or put ads over someone else's content they don't own.

I am actually actively on working on reaching out to everyone who has community addons to build relationships and see if they want to help support an official addon.

As an example, VEVO reached out to us to say our addon didn't support ads. We responded it's a community addon and we're using their published API which does not have ads in it, but we'd love to form a stronger relationship in which we are a '1st party addon ecosystem' using the same API's Roku, Fire TV, Android TV, etc use. They never got back to us.

So while we did not get explicit permission, because we're not damaging their brand and receiving content directly from the source (ie, their api/website/etc) they are fine with it.

If you know of another addon in the repo which does not conform to these rules (and its entirely possible a few out of the 1000+ slipped through the crack) please let us know and we'll quick move to remove it and contact the addon dev.

I'm not sure which ones would and which ones wouldn't conform to the rules(obviously those with an api are fine, but Addons scraped from the html I'm not sure) but for new users surely you must admit it's confusing. They can watch South Park or Premier League football (which is a subbed service) on one addon but not another.
Reply
#63
And for an example of a confused user that doesn't know the difference, see this tweet from today, where a user asks the official Kodi twitter handle for an illegal stream...
https://twitter.com/eddiethespice/status...8815684609
Reply
#64
Roku, Android itself, etc all have this same 'confusion' problem then?

If the new user uses stuff from us, they don't have this confusion issue, because they've never been exposed to the hundreds of piracy addons.

But I think once a user downloads a 3rd party addon and sees that not only do they get southpark, they get every other show, and only 1 out of 5 links work.. they start to get the idea what they're dealing with...

This is two different and distinct problems here. One is the new user experience, which i totally admit needs work.

The other is the content providers. The ones you listed before can't 'claim damages' because we're not illegally obtaining their streams. We are getting them the exact same way any user who uses a web browser would legally and it would be quite easy to block all of us if they cared.

The piracy addons are piracy because of where the content came from. I know you can understand the difference.
Reply
#65
Well you have certainly thrown the cat among the pigeons.Ten Facebook groups that I am in have all changed their names tonight.They have all removed any 'Kodi' wording in their titles.
Reply
#66
For months it is all about that theoretical crap of what can and what cannot be done, bla bla..

What about some action?

Talk talk talk, but......
Reply
#67
The problem with this is, in some places Streaming Content is not illegal.

Obviously it would be illegal for Live TV from Sky and other cable or satellite providers, what would happen to this.

I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement
Reply
#68
(2016-02-12, 00:41)metalkettle Wrote: I'm not sure which ones would and which ones wouldn't conform to the rules(obviously those with an api are fine, but Addons scraped from the html I'm not sure) but for new users surely you must admit it's confusing. They can watch South Park or Premier League football (which is a subbed service) on one addon but not another.

I'm not talking about the new user experience here, I'm talking about legality of where the streams come from. You can't tell me you don't see a difference between a stream coming from southpark.com and one from mega.co.nz/blahfilesharing/somesketchy3rdparty site?

We can't focus on everything. We're not blaming the 'new users' for their confusion. We agree it's happening and we're finally taking first steps to prevent that. This is a long road and we hope by the end of the it the new user will understand the difference, but it'll be months if not years until we're there.

We have to start somewhere, which is going after the people who are making money off our trademark using very obviously piracy addons. They can't even begin to pretend to be 'grey area', esp when you're streaming movies that aren't even out on bluray/etc.
Reply
#69
Android is probably a bad example. As we all know what you can get to install on android. Either suspect side loaded apps but also apps from Google play.

The quality of stream is not a real indicator. Most things are available on 720p if not 1080p and not come direct from the source. In some cases the direct source might be worse. Not a defence I know but there none the less.

As far as new users... the first place they look will be google. The second place social media. I admit that both those sources of information are now flooded with the wrong type of information, but this hasn't happened overnight.
Reply
#70
So let me ask so I know how to go forward. I use Classic Kodi Skins as my title. Not twitter user name by the way. If that isn't allowed can I say Classic Skins for Kodi? Otherwise they could be for anything lol.
Reply
#71
(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement

Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy
Reply
#72
(2016-02-12, 00:52)metalkettle Wrote: As far as new users... the first place they look will be google. The second place social media. I admit that both those sources of information are now flooded with the wrong type of information, but this hasn't happened overnight.

Unlike many of the sites targeted today, we don't make money off this project. Many of us spend 40+h/week working on Kodi for free and don't want to take time policing the internet. But enough is enough and the line in the sand has been drawn. Just because you've stole a piece of candy from the corner store every day this year, doesn't mean tomorrow you won't get caught and punished for it.

The focus will be on the new user experience eventually, to improve the repo experience. We're not there yet. This is what we've chosen to do today.
Reply
#73
(2016-02-12, 00:52)ClassicNancy Wrote: So let me ask so I know how to go forward. I use Classic Kodi Skins as my title. Not twitter user name by the way. If that isn't allowed can I say Classic Skins for Kodi? Otherwise they could be for anything lol.

Follow the Trademark Policy guidelines please:

http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy

And you can always email us and ask 'is this ok?'.
Reply
#74
(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement

Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy

To some degree I've felt that is a touch overreach on our part. I personally wouldn't have a problem with our name appearing on a site the same way you see something like macrumors.com, but I think that's an issue that can be solved once the larger issue of massive confusion is dealt with.
Reply
#75
(2016-02-12, 00:58)natethomas Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:53)keith Wrote:
(2016-02-12, 00:50)TVTips Wrote: I have a site with kodi in it, and offer tips to people using it, would this be classed as a a infringement

Yes, if you use kodi in its name without the foundation's permission, as per the trademark policy:
http://kodi.wiki/view/Official:Trademark_Policy

To some degree I've felt that is a touch overreach on our part. I personally wouldn't have a problem with our name appearing on a site the same way you see something like macrumors.com, but I think that's an issue that can be solved once the larger issue of massive confusion is dealt with.
With all due respect Nate (and I do whole heartedly mean that) you're not making it any clearer lol Smile
Reply
  •   
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5(current)
  • 6
  • 7
  • 40
  •   



Logout Mark Read Team Forum Stats Members Help
Call to Arms: Combatting Trademark Infringement23
This forum uses Lukasz Tkacz MyBB addons.