[Tolriq]

Tolriq, you linked to literal maritime piracy. But fortunately that wiki article includes a redirect to, you guessed it, copyright infringement, which is what piracy with regards to content is.

Yes on purpose, glad you notice You wrote "Piracy is generally defined as the sharing, copying, or performing of copyrighted content from one person to another person via the internet" this is not really the case, this is a very small subset of the term. Yet a valid one for some.

https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-...tml#Piracy for GNU piracy is exactly this definition of maritime acts, and clearly says that non approved copy is not piracy as piracy is something violent like murder. This does not match your definition, yet fight for GNU point of views for other things.
Illegal copy is not piracy for them, so all addons that permit access to illegal content are not piracy They allow to bypass rules made by providers, the exact same thing that other addons on Kodi repo does.

So as I try to say since I jumped in this thread, we are very far from black and white discussion, there's point of views, there's opinions, there's laws, there's TOS. Youtube addon and Twitch addons are illegal from legal point of view, you may tell it's not piracy because the content is accessible on those site, but the addons does permit the bypass of the TOS. This is the same infringement as DMCA, the content is here but law does not permit you do use it like you want.
Point of view, black / white or grey? Not my skill to judge.

I just continue to say, that I see way too much things written like facts, about being white, others being black. And everything being simple. This is not the case at all.

[natethomas]

That gnu post doesn't disagree with the fact that people are using the term piracy to define illegal copying. They are arguing that people shouldn't do it, because it is immoral. Nothing about gnu's position would make the argument equating violating TOS or breaking DMCA encryption rules to piracy accurate. If anything, it further confirms that the only time people use the phrase in our sphere is in copyright violating.

[Tolriq]

So breaking the law to access some content is not the same as breaking the law to access some content?

Sorry but I don't buy it, it's not a matter of wording it's a matter of opinion and far from something like official / common things.

About GNU they say that for them Piracy is not that, no matter what people says (for them providers propaganda and not user definition), and that illegal access to content is not piracy. So they say that for them the definition you use is not true. So this by definition says that there's at least 2 definition for piracy, meaning your definition is not the only one and as such can't be given as a generality, since a bigger organisation have another.

When an addon https://github.com/xbmc/repo-plugins/blo...fo.py#L519
Impersonate being something it's not (User-Agent) and fake a referer to impersonate coming from somewhere else to access something that it's not entitled to, is clearly not something "normal".

Anyone can see that's it's a least very shady without even looking at the TOS.

Anyway I can see that things must stay white and we should not talk about addons currently in the repo, so let it be.

[natethomas]

So breaking the law to access some content is not the same as breaking the law to access some content?

Yes, this is exactly correct. Murder is different from Arson which is different from Assault and Battery which is different from Theft, etc. They all "break the law," but they do so in different ways.

A copyright violation breaks laws regarding copyright. Breaking encryption violates laws related to the DMCA (in the US, at least), but does not fulfill the elements of copyright violation. Breaking the terms of service of a website isn't actually breaking the law at all, but rather violates a contract, which is typically not illegal. Impersonating someone else is fraud, though I'm not sure it counts since it's one piece of software tricking another piece of software, but that's the closest comparison. And sneaking into a movie theater to watch a movie is theft of services, but it's theft from the theater, not the people who make the movie. Each of these things is different and has different elements associated with, and it is a mistake to conflate them or otherwise act like they are the same thing. Perhaps you feel that morally they are the same level of "evil" or something, but that doesn't change the fact that the actual law makes very clear distinctions between all these different rules. If you want a real mindbender to see how important these distinctions are, read Posner's ruling in Flava Works v Gunter.

About GNU they say that for them Piracy is not that, no matter what people says (for them providers propaganda and not user definition), and that illegal access to content is not piracy. So they say that for them the definition you use is not true. So this by definition says that there's at least 2 definition for piracy, meaning your definition is not the only one and as such can't be given as a generality, since a bigger organisation have another.

This is an absurd example of splitting hairs to try to win a stupid argument and is literally wrong. They don't say that's not the definition. They say one group defines it that way, but "you" might want to use some other word. They don't take an official stance on the definition at all.

[trogggy]

This is an absurd example of splitting hairs to try to win a stupid argument and is literally wrong. They don't say that's not the definition. They say one group defines it that way, but "you" might want to use some other word. They don't take an official stance on the definition at all.

Publishers often refer to copying they don't approve of as “piracy.” In this way, they imply that it is ethically equivalent to attacking ships on the high seas, kidnapping and murdering the people on them. Based on such propaganda, they have procured laws in most of the world to forbid copying in most (or sometimes all) circumstances.

If that's not taking a stance I don't know what they'd have to do.

[natethomas]

If that's not taking a stance I don't know what they'd have to do.

They are taking a stance. Against the people who made that definition. They are not taking a stance that that definition does not exist.

[trogggy]

If that's not taking a stance I don't know what they'd have to do.

They are taking a stance. Against the people who made that definition. They are not taking a stance that that definition does not exist.

No, because that would be ludicrous.

They don't take an official stance on the definition at all.

They seem to be taking the stance that the definition is bollocks.

If all you're saying is that they don't deny people use the word piracy to refer to copyright infringements then sure. But 'They don't take an official stance on the definition at all' is misleading at best.

[natethomas]

If all you're saying is that they don't deny people use the word piracy to refer to copyright infringements then sure.

That is, indeed, my point.

[the_bo]

Although tvaddons hosted many piracy addons, I don't think the great Earthcam addon on their site is illegal since its only using the freely available streams from the earthcam site similar to the youtube addon using streams from youtube.

Please correct me if im wrong

[trogggy]

If all you're saying is that they don't deny people use the word piracy to refer to copyright infringements then sure.

That is, indeed, my point.

So along the same lines as 'natethomas doesn't have a position on the definition of kodi builds' then.
Gotcha.

[natethomas]

That's actually a pretty good comparison, despite your obviously disparaging tone. Much like GNU, it's a term I object to and feel should not be used in the way it is. And yet I must acknowledge that many in the area do use it that way and is easily recognizable in that way. Though I'd argue that online piracy meaning copyright violations is far more prevalent than builds meaning Kodi with addons installed.

On a sidenote, did I crap in your cereal or something or do you just hold grudges against people you disagree with generally?

[trogggy]

That's actually a pretty good comparison, despite your obviously disparaging tone. Much like GNU, it's a term I object to and feel should not be used in the way it is. And yet I must acknowledge that many in the area do use it that way and is easily recognizable in that way. Though I'd argue that online piracy meaning copyright violations is far more prevalent than builds meaning Kodi with addons installed.

On a sidenote, did I crap in your cereal or something or do you just hold grudges against people you disagree with generally?

That's a 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
I don't think I hold grudges just because someone disagrees with me (certainly not if it's about something as unimportant as a media centre). My feelings are coloured by the way someone interacts with me though - both positively and negatively. I've been left with some pretty negative feelings after interacting with you, so no doubt that has an effect. But if my wife / mum / best mate had written:

They don't say that's not the definition. They say one group defines it that way, but "you" might want to use some other word. They don't take an official stance on the definition at all.

I'd still be saying 'Bollocks.'

[natethomas]

Alright. I'm not going to ban you for having negative feelings towards me. I just hope that you can accept that I'm going to have opinions that will also probably piss you off in the future and learn to deal with it.

As for this thread, I think it's far enough off the deep end that we can go ahead and shut her down now.

[Karellen]

Court grants subpoenas to unmask TVAddons and ZemTV


https://torrentfreak.com/court-grants-su...rs-170621/

[Karellen]

@BFeely

Was the article incorrect in anything they reported?