XBMC Community Forum
XBMC's Piracy Stance: Draft - Printable Version

+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Announcements, Info, and General Discussion (/forumdisplay.php?fid=85)
+--- Forum: Kodi General Discussion (/forumdisplay.php?fid=6)
+--- Thread: XBMC's Piracy Stance: Draft (/showthread.php?tid=117995)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19


- Ned Scott - 2012-01-01 13:25

lefty420 Wrote:Well there's really two points here. Firstly the issues with the icefilms addon and other copywrong content. A piracy stance is really the best option. Addons like ice are big enough for someone with balls to host independently and probably run quite a successful site.

Secondly is the whole SOPA issue. It's a shit storm waiting to happen and big sites, esp open source apps with a foot firmly in the history books of piracy should be staying out of it's grasp. not only for safety's sake but really out of principle. 2012 is going to be a big year for on-line rights,censorship etc. Big business and our governbents are really having a hard time trying to keep a lid on it and as a community we should be making this as difficult for them as possible.

First one, yes, second one, no. SOPA has nothing to do with this policy. When SOPA gets shot down, this policy will still be in place. If SOPA never existed this policy would still be in place.

This is not a thread for discussing SOPA.


- g0beau - 2012-01-01 16:33

Ned Scott Wrote:Just one?

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/bittorrent/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20006314-261.html

http://arstechnica.com/media/news/2010/07/next-wave-of-far-cry-torrent-lawsuits-incoming.ars

http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5081098-1.html

No distribution required. These are suits for downloaded content.

I'm no lawyer either, and I'm fascinated by the nuances of this issue, but I feel I should point out that torrents are not simply downloading. I did not read all of the sources you cited but the first two certainly involve torrents and sharing.


- pecinko - 2012-01-01 16:44

natethomas Wrote:The fact of the matter is, for better or for worse, the foundation has been formed in the US. In Delaware specifically, I think. This means, regardless of where our various website pieces are located, "we" are located in the US and have to abide by fairly stringent rules.

Then move to more democratic state.

I buy my movies and apps so this will not affect me. However, it is sad that xbmc would restrict things in order to comply with retrograde US policies.


- dieselboy27 - 2012-01-01 17:17

Sorry to see this happen, but kind of expected it to happen long ago.


- krish_2k4 - 2012-01-01 17:24

and the land of the fre.......oh wait!


- ashlar - 2012-01-01 17:44

g0beau Wrote:I'm no lawyer either, and I'm fascinated by the nuances of this issue, but I feel I should point out that torrents are not simply downloading. I did not read all of the sources you cited but the first two certainly involve torrents and sharing.
And the other two are similar. One involves torrents, the other states that RIAA sues uploaders and not downloaders (although it claims downloading is illegal).


- darkscout - 2012-01-01 18:26

1) I said link to the lawsuit, not to some media release. These are the guys that screwed up cracker/hacker, think that Oxygen explodes and a whole lot of other technical terms.

2)
Ned Scott Wrote:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/03/bittorrent/

Linked from that article were some actual court documents:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/openmind.pdf

Lawsuit Wrote:Defendants, without Plaintiff’s authorization or license, intentionally downloaded torrent files, purposefully loaded the torrent files into BitTorrent clients, entered a BitTorrent swarm particular to Plaintiff’s copyrighted creative works, and reproduced and distributed the same to numerous third parties.

Defendants’ conduct infringes upon Plaintiff’s exclusive rights of reproduction and distribution that are protected under the Copyright Act.

Lots of legalese about bit torrent protocol, blah blah. Not sued for downloading. Sued for uploading.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/nude-nuns-with-big-guns-1.pdf

Quote:The Defendants, and each of them, are believed to have engaged in the distribution of the Motion Picture via one or more peer to peer ("P2P") networks through the use of software which operates using the BitTorrent protocol.



Quote:http://news.cnet.com/8301-31001_3-20006314-261.html

This one was in the first line. "Producers of Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker" have made good on a promise to file copyright lawsuits against people who illegally shared the movie via peer-to-peer networks."

Quote:http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6450_7-5081098-1.html

Quote:As I mentioned in a previous column, the RIAA is currently suing only users who share more than 1,000 songs.

Uploading, Sharing, Distributing. You could have ripped your own CD collection, put it on Kazaa and still been sued.

-

Zero, Zip, Nul, Cero Lawsuits from people who have just downloaded files. Every single one has been a P2P network where you were making available or uploading at the same time: Kazaa, Bittorrent, etc.

IceFilms (MegaUpload), That of which we do not speak, FTP, HTTP, DCC, etc are all not P2P. Legality problems are for them to deal with.

As pointed out in the RIAA example. You could have ripped 100% of your own content. Had 100% of your own legally owned files. Had Kazaa automatically add them to it's "shared folder" during setup. Never downloaded a thing in your life and still been sued.


- amet - 2012-01-01 18:40

pecinko Wrote:Then move to more democratic state.

really, thats it? just like that?

pecinko Wrote:I buy my movies and apps so this will not affect me. However, it is sad that xbmc would restrict things in order to comply with retrograde US policies.

then you have nothing to worry about, and with all piracy out of the way we sure are to be arround for many many years to come

happy new year all!!


- ashlar - 2012-01-01 21:00

One word of caution for everyone: let's not confuse trying to cope with a tough situation with approving it. I was among the first to be let down by reading this but I feel we need to be united to stand this test. I am pretty sure that the developers are just trying to find the best way for XBMC to keep on giving us its unparalleled flexibility and nothing more.


- natethomas - 2012-01-01 21:38

Not to get too far adrift with this discussion, but most lawsuits dealt with uploading, because nobody wanted the legal battle that comes with downloading. Making a copy of copyrighted content and then distributing that content is clearly illegal, because it is illegal to make a copy and no one has any doubt that the uploader is performing the act of copying.

That doesn't mean downloading is legal. It merely means nobody has wanted to deal with the unknown and untested question of whether downloaders are ALSO making a copy. I honestly have no idea if that question will ever come up, but it is a mistake to believe that unknown==legal.

Anyway, it looks like this thread is starting to wind down. It definitely looks clear that we're going to have to better define the language of our understanding of "fair use." And it may help to provide examples of the exceptions we've put into place. It may also be useful to note officially in the rules that they are meant only for the forum, and will in no way affect the software.


- pecinko - 2012-01-01 22:59

amet Wrote:really, thats it? just like that?



then you have nothing to worry about, and with all piracy out of the way we sure are to be arround for many many years to come

happy new year all!!

I have moved from one country to another so I don't see any obstacles in xbmc going the similar route if that would help.

I'm not worried at all - I'm not the thread openner.

Yet another harsh reply from you - I guess it will be better to go with the flow in the future.


- Robotica - 2012-01-01 23:15

natethomas Wrote:Not to get too far adrift with this discussion, but most lawsuits dealt with uploading, because nobody wanted the legal battle that comes with downloading. Making a copy of copyrighted content and then distributing that content is clearly illegal, because it is illegal to make a copy and no one has any doubt that the uploader is performing the act of copying.

That doesn't mean downloading is legal. It merely means nobody has wanted to deal with the unknown and untested question of whether downloaders are ALSO making a copy. I honestly have no idea if that question will ever come up, but it is a mistake to believe that unknown==legal.

Anyway, it looks like this thread is starting to wind down. It definitely looks clear that we're going to have to better define the language of our understanding of "fair use." And it may help to provide examples of the exceptions we've put into place. It may also be useful to note officially in the rules that they are meant only for the forum, and will in no way affect the software.

Like I said before, discussing the forum rules without knowing the reason the Foundation exists (mission, values, etc.) sounds a little strange to me.


- Ned Scott - 2012-01-02 03:54

darkscout Wrote:Zero, Zip, Nul, Cero Lawsuits from people who have just downloaded files. Every single one has been a P2P network where you were making available or uploading at the same time: Kazaa, Bittorrent, etc.

IceFilms (MegaUpload), That of which we do not speak, FTP, HTTP, DCC, etc are all not P2P. Legality problems are for them to deal with.

As pointed out in the RIAA example. You could have ripped 100% of your own content. Had 100% of your own legally owned files. Had Kazaa automatically add them to it's "shared folder" during setup. Never downloaded a thing in your life and still been sued.

My apologies for not finding better examples, but you are living in a dream world if you think that downloading pirated videos from megaupload is legal, or that someone can't be sued for it.

Even so.. I, nor any member of Team-XBMC, don't give a damn if individuals are targeted or not for lawsuits. It's still illegal.

XBMC, however, could be seen as helping in distribution. And even then, even if we knew by some magic ball that we would never be sued, it's still illegal. The Team doesn't like the association between XBMC and blatant piracy.


- ZERO <ibis> - 2012-01-02 08:54

darkscout Wrote:1) I said link to the lawsuit, not to some media release. These are the guys that screwed up cracker/hacker, think that Oxygen explodes and a whole lot of other technical terms.

2)


Linked from that article were some actual court documents:
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/openmind.pdf



Lots of legalese about bit torrent protocol, blah blah. Not sued for downloading. Sued for uploading.

http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2011/03/nude-nuns-with-big-guns-1.pdf







This one was in the first line. "Producers of Oscar-winning film "The Hurt Locker" have made good on a promise to file copyright lawsuits against people who illegally shared the movie via peer-to-peer networks."





Uploading, Sharing, Distributing. You could have ripped your own CD collection, put it on Kazaa and still been sued.

-

Zero, Zip, Nul, Cero Lawsuits from people who have just downloaded files. Every single one has been a P2P network where you were making available or uploading at the same time: Kazaa, Bittorrent, etc.

IceFilms (MegaUpload), That of which we do not speak, FTP, HTTP, DCC, etc are all not P2P. Legality problems are for them to deal with.

As pointed out in the RIAA example. You could have ripped 100% of your own content. Had 100% of your own legally owned files. Had Kazaa automatically add them to it's "shared folder" during setup. Never downloaded a thing in your life and still been sued.

What is interesting in that all of the bittorrent cases there should be no way to prove the uploading part. If they are distributing the torrent it is not possible to tell what part and to who. As far as they can prove a user could have been torrenting copies to themselves for backup purposes. Also giving 1 person 30seconds of a movie is not the same as giving them the movie. Sharing small parts of a copyrighted work should be covered under fare use. As they can not prove that a user shared the entire thing with any one other user the claim that they were doing anything wrong is crazy. In addition how could they even know what the contents are without downloading which would require them to upload something which would then cause them to break the law they think they are protecting... hum something does not seem right here.

I would like to hear of a case that went to court where they could say how many copies of a completed file a user transmitted over bittorent and who they sent them to.


- Ned Scott - 2012-01-02 10:21

ZERO &lt;ibis&gt; Wrote:What is interesting in that all of the bittorrent cases there should be no way to prove the uploading part. If they are distributing the torrent it is not possible to tell what part and to who. As far as they can prove a user could have been torrenting copies to themselves for backup purposes. Also giving 1 person 30seconds of a movie is not the same as giving them the movie. Sharing small parts of a copyrighted work should be covered under fare use. As they can not prove that a user shared the entire thing with any one other user the claim that they were doing anything wrong is crazy. In addition how could they even know what the contents are without downloading which would require them to upload something which would then cause them to break the law they think they are protecting... hum something does not seem right here.

I would like to hear of a case that went to court where they could say how many copies of a completed file a user transmitted over bittorent and who they sent them to.

While you actually make a good point about the possibility of people using torrents (of pirated content) when they have a legal copy of something (there was a time where it would have been faster to download a given movie than encode it on my older computer), the fair use part because torrents are in "pieces"... not so much.

Just because it's a small portion of the original work does not make something fair use. Fair use is an argument of sorts, where portion of work is just one element or argument. Plus, the intent in this situation is to give out full copies, regardless of how the exact technical exchange happens. Nor does copyright law say that something is only a violation if you give the same person the whole (or significant mount) copy. It is still distribution, and for a movie acquired illegally.

In any case (tl;dr) "Sharing small parts of a copyrighted work should be covered under fare use." is incorrect.