[natethomas]

FWIW, an addon does not violate a TOS, because the addon is not a person. The only people who can violate a TOS are those actually accessing whatever the TOS covers. When a website is scraped and TOS covers scraping a website, only the user can theoretically violate the TOS. When the dev is employing an API, both the dev and the user could theoretically break the TOS.

With that said, even when a TOS is violated, no actions become "illegal." You don't suddenly have to worry about violating the DMCA or any other laws. Nor do you have to worry about being called a pirate. At most, you're violating a weak contract with the only repercussions being those set out in the TOS, which typically include the content provider being allowed to restrict your right to access the content. If you somehow manage to cause the provider actual harm, they COULD sue you for damages, but that suit would be unrelated to the TOS (and I can't imagine being able to prove harm in our case. Proving harm is extraordinarily difficult in these cases, which is why the DMCA and copyright law in general have statutory awards, rather than damage-based awards).

tl;dr Violating a TOS and violating copyright law are dramatically, dramatically different things.

One other extraordinarily important point (and something the piracy addon people are correct about, annoyingly enough): Addons do not redistribute content. At least not in the united states. The courts have been very clear about this one. If someone is hosting content, and you provide a link to that content, or you even display that content on your website (or other software), but the content remains only hosted on the content provider's server, then you are only technically linking to the content.

This results in a strange predicament where the content provider could actually benefit from your rehosting the content (less stress on their servers, etc.), but the law encourages you not to rehost the content, as only then are you violating the content provider's copyright.

[Lunatixz]

FWIW, an addon does not violate a TOS, because the addon is not a person. The only people who can violate a TOS are those actually accessing whatever the TOS covers. When a website is scraped and TOS covers scraping a website, only the user can theoretically violate the TOS. When the dev is employing an API, both the dev and the user could theoretically break the TOS.

With that said, even when a TOS is violated, no actions become "illegal." You don't suddenly have to worry about violating the DMCA or any other laws. Nor do you have to worry about being called a pirate. At most, you're violating a weak contract with the only repercussions being those set out in the TOS, which typically include the content provider being allowed to restrict your right to access the content. If you somehow manage to cause the provider actual harm, they COULD sue you for damages, but that suit would be unrelated to the TOS (and I can't imagine being able to prove harm in our case. Proving harm is extraordinarily difficult in these cases, which is why the DMCA and copyright law in general have statutory awards, rather than damage-based awards).

tl;dr Violating a TOS and violating copyright law are dramatically, dramatically different things.

One other extraordinarily important point (and something the piracy addon people are correct about, annoyingly enough): Addons do not redistribute content. At least not in the united states. The courts have been very clear about this one. If someone is hosting content, and you provide a link to that content, or you even display that content on your website (or other software), but the content remains only hosted on the content provider's server, then you are only technically linking to the content.

This results in a strange predicament where the content provider could actually benefit from your rehosting the content (less stress on their servers, etc.), but the law encourages you not to rehost the content, as only then are you violating the content provider's copyright.

So... If a website hosts videos & its TOS states you can not download its content (must be viewed on their site and using their player) or bypass its ad revenue software. You are saying it's okay to develop a plugin for that site and it will be accepted by kodi so long as the source is not deemed illegal?

[greenbag]

FWIW, an addon does not violate a TOS, because the addon is not a person. The only people who can violate a TOS are those actually accessing whatever the TOS covers. When a website is scraped and TOS covers scraping a website, only the user can theoretically violate the TOS. When the dev is employing an API, both the dev and the user could theoretically break the TOS.

With that said, even when a TOS is violated, no actions become "illegal." You don't suddenly have to worry about violating the DMCA or any other laws. Nor do you have to worry about being called a pirate. At most, you're violating a weak contract with the only repercussions being those set out in the TOS, which typically include the content provider being allowed to restrict your right to access the content. If you somehow manage to cause the provider actual harm, they COULD sue you for damages, but that suit would be unrelated to the TOS (and I can't imagine being able to prove harm in our case. Proving harm is extraordinarily difficult in these cases, which is why the DMCA and copyright law in general have statutory awards, rather than damage-based awards).

tl;dr Violating a TOS and violating copyright law are dramatically, dramatically different things.

One other extraordinarily important point (and something the piracy addon people are correct about, annoyingly enough): Addons do not redistribute content. At least not in the united states. The courts have been very clear about this one. If someone is hosting content, and you provide a link to that content, or you even display that content on your website (or other software), but the content remains only hosted on the content provider's server, then you are only technically linking to the content.

This results in a strange predicament where the content provider could actually benefit from your rehosting the content (less stress on their servers, etc.), but the law encourages you not to rehost the content, as only then are you violating the content provider's copyright.

So... If a website hosts videos & its TOS states you can not download its content (must be viewed on their site and using their player) or bypass its ad revenue software. You are saying it's okay to develop a plugin for that site and it will be accepted by kodi so long as the source is not deemed illegal?

Developing is one thing, releasing and giving it to the public is another. Freedom of information.. and depending where you live, freedom to "test".. as long as there's no financial gain. At least that's the way it was in the d!sh community, and you lived in Canada. That's why everything was released in source form.. nobody got in trouble releasing full blown executables.

But if it's illegal to use the embedded video link of said website, then apps like vlc would be in violation of supplying the software to do so. I'd think....

[Ned Scott]

Are we talking about an add-on accepted by the forum/wiki/etc or the Kodi.tv add-on repo? ;)

[natethomas]

So... If a website hosts videos & its TOS states you can not download its content (must be viewed on their site and using their player) or bypass its ad revenue software. You are saying it's okay to develop a plugin for that site and it will be accepted by kodi so long as the source is not deemed illegal?

This is assuming the website has the right to distribute the content, right? I certainly wouldn't have a problem with such an addon. I can't speak for the repo maintainers though, as I don't do that job. But in my opinion that's perfectly fine.

If the company that owned the content then contacted us directly and asked us to remove the addon from our repo, we'd likely oblige though. But I doubt we'd remove the forum thread, and we'd likely use the opportunity to speak to them about creating an official addon to replace the community addon.

[max_rebo]

this thread wasn't about whether it's legal or not to stream the films online via kodi, exodus or even youtube for that matter. It's about the people who make the film in the first place not getting any revenue when people watch their film via a ripped copy that is available for stream via some website or Kodi add-on. For me, that is wrong but I don't see free to watch services like kodi going away any time soon hence movie makers need to adapt to the internet, not the other way round. Movie makers have to find another way to monetise their films so it doesn't matter whether people watch a ripped copy on kodi, or a cinema showing it on release day, either way they should be paid, otherwise who'd make any films at all?

[greenbag]

this thread wasn't about whether it's legal or not to stream the films online via kodi, exodus or even youtube for that matter. It's about the people who make the film in the first place not getting any revenue when people watch their film via a ripped copy that is available for stream via some website or Kodi add-on. For me, that is wrong but I don't see free to watch services like kodi going away any time soon hence movie makers need to adapt to the internet, not the other way round. Movie makers have to find another way to monetise their films so it doesn't matter whether people watch a ripped copy on kodi, or a cinema showing it on release day, either way they should be paid, otherwise who'd make any films at all?

Then it also comes down to file sharing in general, including whether a person can share a copy of a film or music they've already paid for. We used to be able to share our video tapes with friends... just not on a global scale.

[max_rebo]

this thread wasn't about whether it's legal or not to stream the films online via kodi, exodus or even youtube for that matter. It's about the people who make the film in the first place not getting any revenue when people watch their film via a ripped copy that is available for stream via some website or Kodi add-on. For me, that is wrong but I don't see free to watch services like kodi going away any time soon hence movie makers need to adapt to the internet, not the other way round. Movie makers have to find another way to monetise their films so it doesn't matter whether people watch a ripped copy on kodi, or a cinema showing it on release day, either way they should be paid, otherwise who'd make any films at all?

Then it also comes down to file sharing in general, including whether a person can share a copy of a film or music they've already paid for. We used to be able to share our video tapes with friends... just not on a global scale.

sure, I agree with this, I loved making tapes and sharing them with my mates. But a) that was the 70's/80's and the world has moved on a tad since then (albeit sometimes I question whether for the better or not), and b) is it right to be able to watch a film that is still out at the box office, in full HD online for free? No other way to get hold of those films other than thieving them surely, which presumably makes anyone watching them just as guilty as the thief who made the copy/stole the master in the first place?

Which brings me back to my point. There is no such thing as a free lunch. One day someone is gonna come knocking and ask for you (not you literally, but you get my point) to pay for those films you watched for free that you thought were totally legal and legit, just because they were available via a nice looking website!!! Fun at the time, but worth it in the long run?? Better to wait a few weeks, pay a few £/$ and download it via iTunes or watch it on Netflix?? ......or via Kodi if there was a pay to watch option??

[greenbag]

this thread wasn't about whether it's legal or not to stream the films online via kodi, exodus or even youtube for that matter. It's about the people who make the film in the first place not getting any revenue when people watch their film via a ripped copy that is available for stream via some website or Kodi add-on. For me, that is wrong but I don't see free to watch services like kodi going away any time soon hence movie makers need to adapt to the internet, not the other way round. Movie makers have to find another way to monetise their films so it doesn't matter whether people watch a ripped copy on kodi, or a cinema showing it on release day, either way they should be paid, otherwise who'd make any films at all?

Then it also comes down to file sharing in general, including whether a person can share a copy of a film or music they've already paid for. We used to be able to share our video tapes with friends... just not on a global scale.

sure, I agree with this, I loved making tapes and sharing them with my mates. But a) that was the 70's/80's and the world has moved on a tad since then (albeit sometimes I question whether for the better or not), and b) is it right to be able to watch a film that is still out at the box office, in full HD online for free? No other way to get hold of those films other than thieving them surely, which presumably makes anyone watching them just as guilty as the thief who made the copy/stole the master in the first place?

Which brings me back to my point. There is no such thing as a free lunch. One day someone is gonna come knocking and ask for you (not you literally, but you get my point) to pay for those films you watched for free that you thought were totally legal and legit, just because they were available via a nice looking website!!! Fun at the time, but worth it in the long run?? Better to wait a few weeks, pay a few £/$ and download it via iTunes or watch it on Netflix?? ......or via Kodi if there was a pay to watch option??

Then find another way to watch tv. My country doesn't have a problem with it, and neither do I. The studios make enough damn $$, and it's not like we're watching the full bluray dvd quality to begin with.


edit: In Canada, we're allowed to download.. just not upload/share. Our isp's have been known to tell you straight up... they don't want to send the warning letter, but the studios ask them to.. they then tell you to just delete the film once you're finished viewing it. And that's the isp's telling you this.

[greenbag]

btw... the studios have never reimbursed us for taking over our neighbourhoods in my city. Have you ever been told you have to wait 15 minutes to cross the street... just to get into your own apartment? They literally just take over. The only warning you get, is a piece of paper stuck to the front door. I don't get reimbursed for that.

[greenbag]

Here's another way of looking at it... none of these plugins actually host the content being streamed. They are merely organizing links that are already available through google, on anyone's computer. So, in effect.. they are merely search engines for content that's already on the internet, and already being shown in search engines such as google and bing. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. If it was... go after google.. they provide the access to the link to begin with.

And if the studios are so concerned.. shut the streaming sites down.

[max_rebo]

Here's another way of looking at it... none of these plugins actually host the content being streamed. They are merely organizing links that are already available through google, on anyone's computer. So, in effect.. they are merely search engines for content that's already on the internet, and already being shown in search engines such as google and bing. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. If it was... go after google.. they provide the access to the link to begin with.

And if the studios are so concerned.. shut the streaming sites down.

true, and in that example Google are no different than Kodi, or Exodus etc, just a middle man/shop window advertising someone elses goods. No issue with that. But at the end of this trail is an illegal copy of a film someone didn't pay for (probably, but no way of knowing), and the person who originally made the film is getting no money in his pocket when thousands of people could be watching it and Mr or Mrs film maker could be earning a living. I don't care how much the viewer pays, that part is irrelevant, but at least have a way to donate $1 to the guy as a courtesy??

[greenbag]

Here's another way of looking at it... none of these plugins actually host the content being streamed. They are merely organizing links that are already available through google, on anyone's computer. So, in effect.. they are merely search engines for content that's already on the internet, and already being shown in search engines such as google and bing. There's absolutely nothing illegal about that. If it was... go after google.. they provide the access to the link to begin with.

And if the studios are so concerned.. shut the streaming sites down.

true, and in that example Google are no different than Kodi, or Exodus etc, just a middle man/shop window advertising someone elses goods. No issue with that. But at the end of this trail is an illegal copy of a film someone didn't pay for (probably, but no way of knowing), and the person who originally made the film is getting no money in his pocket when thousands of people could be watching it and Mr or Mrs film maker could be earning a living. I don't care how much the viewer pays, that part is irrelevant, but at least have a way to donate $1 to the guy as a courtesy??

The only time the studio has ever gone after the enduser, is if the user downloaded it via some torrent app, then left it in their folder.. and continued to share it.. knowingly or not. Nobody has ever gotten in trouble just for viewing a stream already hosted on some site. You aren't downloading it. You aren't sharing it.

My uncle's daughter, drunk one night, couldn't find a working link on kodi. She decides to download it instead. He gets a warning letter from the studio, via the isp. The isp literally tells him they don't want to send it, they have to. Then say just don't share, and delete when you're done. That's all they're concerned about. And as for the studio.. it's only a warning letter. You only get a bill if you're uploading.

[Ned Scott]

this thread wasn't about whether it's legal or not to stream the films online via kodi, exodus or even youtube for that matter. It's about the people who make the film in the first place not getting any revenue when people watch their film via a ripped copy that is available for stream via some website or Kodi add-on. For me, that is wrong but I don't see free to watch services like kodi going away any time soon hence movie makers need to adapt to the internet, not the other way round. Movie makers have to find another way to monetise their films so it doesn't matter whether people watch a ripped copy on kodi, or a cinema showing it on release day, either way they should be paid, otherwise who'd make any films at all?

A fair point. If at all possible, I would like to see add-ons be able to enable some form of ads (such as in-video ads) when it is supporting those people. Maybe not pop-up ads, as those are horrible, but like YouTube style ads. Even banner "ads" for the website (logo and web address, etc) that the add-on pulls from would be fine by me.

Heck, I'd love it if YouTube would help us enable such things in Kodi.

I still hate ads in general, but there's a ton of small business types (or even some big ones) who actually make a living this way, and I have no problems supporting them. For example, I've watched a ton of RedLetterMedia videos using the Kodi youtube add-on. I also bought two of their movies on DVD, and a third on digital download (which is DRM free, nice). Gotta pay those hack frauds for more Plinkett review videos ;)

[PatK]

I would like to see add-ons be able to enable some form of ads (such as in-video ads)

egads, the enemy within. A lot of videos already have commercials built into the videos from the front end to the back end and logos on the way, not to mention the 'subscribe' stuff that still comes through even after you subscribe and on every video, regardless of length. Please save us... Not to mention they grab your ip for further assaults, what's next...a cam shot of your wallet?

Heck, I'd love it if YouTube would help us enable such things in Kodi.

Guess commercials might help pay for Kodi business, but I would appeal to regulators that the amount of ads delivered with content already exceeds advertising guidelines. I suggest a donation drive to enrich the Kodi coffers and drum up some developer interest with the notion of free beer.

Look if you're going to live your life with rules set by some Spanish judge's ruling; fine. I'll go about my business, and not worry that Kodi isn't seen as a complex browser, or the open public links I click are only for some corporations browser and you need to stand on 1 leg to view content. Let's stop this public trial of Kodi by plebs and get on with making this the best media player for us all.