Slashdot Mirror
Kodi Is Fighting Trademark Trolls (betanews.com)
Friday the makers of an open source media player Kodi called out trademark trolls who they say have "attempted to register the Kodi name in various countries outside the United States with the goal of earning money off the Kodi name without doing any work beyond sending threatening letters." BrianFagioli shares an article in which BetaNews quotes Kodi community and project manager Nathan Betzen:
"At least one trademark troll has so far not agreed to voluntarily release their grasp on their registration of our trademark and is actively blackmailing hardware vendors in an entire country, trying to become as rich as possible off of our backs and the backs of Kodi volunteers everywhere. His name is Geoff Gavora. He had written several letters to the Foundation over the years, expressing how important XBMC and Kodi were to him and his sales. And then, one day, for whatever reason, he decided to register the Kodi trademark in his home country of Canada. We had hoped, given the positive nature of his past emails, that perhaps he was doing this for the benefit of the Foundation. We learned, unfortunately, that this was not the case," says Nathan Betzen, Kodi Project Manager.
"Instead, companies like Mygica and our sponsor Minix have been delisted by Gavora on Amazon, so that only Gavora's hardware can be sold, unless those companies pay him a fee to stay on the store. Now, if you do a search for Kodi on Amazon.ca, there's a very real chance that every box you see is giving Gavora money to advertise that they can run what should be the entirely free and open Kodi. Gavora and his company are behaving in true trademark troll fashion."
"Instead, companies like Mygica and our sponsor Minix have been delisted by Gavora on Amazon, so that only Gavora's hardware can be sold, unless those companies pay him a fee to stay on the store. Now, if you do a search for Kodi on Amazon.ca, there's a very real chance that every box you see is giving Gavora money to advertise that they can run what should be the entirely free and open Kodi. Gavora and his company are behaving in true trademark troll fashion."
Do understand that this is the reason MAME registered a trademark. Shitty people will do whatever they want with open source software. I am absolutely sure that the Kodi trademark was registered in bad faith, just like other trademarks like the IPhone by linksys.
That's a lot of words for "ironic"
NUKE CANADA!
It's nothing but a USA wannabe!
America will not be so basely demeaned. Threatening letters are what built this country!
is TRUE. I make importants lawyer in RUSSIA.
So, if you think the prices for a product are too expensive, that gives you the license to just take it without paying? That is some seriously screwed up logic and ethics you have there. Piracy occurs because people lack ethics and would prefer to take something for free rather than paying for it. L
His name is Geoff Gavora. He had written several letters to the Foundation over the years, expressing how important XBMC and Kodi were to him and his sales.
Well then, I suggest they talk to Hari Seldon and get it sorted out. He seems to have a lot of experience dealing with difficult people.
#DeleteChrome
Should have stayed with XMBC and got on with life. Kodi is a stupid name.
Seriously. He's trying to steal from a lot of people at once. Fuck this guy. Someone should end him.
Canada to be aimed at him. The Kodi folks ought to just redirect any to him as a favor.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
When you buy something that doesn't do what the marketing bullshit says it should do, there are laws in place that gives you the right to get a refund. Nothing similar exists for copyrighted material.
And some of them add more bullshit on the packaging saying that if you open it you agree to the bullshit legal mumbo-jumbo user agreement sealed inside the packaging that you can't read before opening it.
Copyright means copy right. The right to copy after a limited period of time. That law was put in place for both the authors and the public but since the last few decades it has become one-sided bullshit protecting mega-corporation that steal from the authors themselves and put people in prison or ruin their lives simply for copying media. The law is less severe if you steal physical things from a store, where there is actual losses involved.
#DeleteFacebook
What about piracy because the media companies are too bone-headed to sell their media in my country? I want to pay but they don't want to sell, what's up with that?
What's fc up us you and others think anybody has an obligation to pay in the first place. "Intellectual" property is in itself screwed up concept. It's saying it's OK for their to be a select elite who can monopolize information or business. Copy"right" is by definition and law a monopoly. It's not acceptable anywhere. Nowhere else would I be entitled to profit. If a competitor opens up shop in my town I don't get to kick him out just because I want a right to sell exclusively whatever it is I sell. No. You have to compete. In a truly free market producers would have to come up with sane business models that didn't rely on thugs to extract money from people. There are plenty of successful business models that are not dependent copy"right", or at least exclusive distribution, but are dependent on production of content. Redhat is one example. But I've seen successful subscription services even back in the 1990s that didn't rely on digital restrictions. I ran one. In fact we did quite well. Produce new content once a month or so and people would subscribe. The content was copied elsewhere- but it didn't stop people from subscribing. And then there are plenty of production business models that don't even rely on selling the content. For instance most software developers produce functional content for private business interests whom don't sell that content onward at all. The reality is you don't need copy"right" to make money from content production. Besides that I know numerous film producers who make money off their movies and/or other content. From specialist news sites that give away their content (with advertising) to people posting videos on YouTube (again with advertising). Yea- it's not a blockbuster film- but it also isn't impossible to raise funds for movies that have good plots. Then combine that with investment dollars and magically you have a big budget film without relying on violence to extract funds from those who wish not partake in your immoral schemes.
To conclude. Nobody is depriving the producer of said content by copying said content. To deprived of some physical object is to lose that object. You may feel a moral obligation to contribute, and that's honourable, and good in most cases, but it's not something the government or producers have a right to. Government shouldn't regulate people's morals.
Nobody has a right to business. You earn customers by being good to them, not busting their heads in. Content is generally not stolen and there is no actual loss. The artificial construct isn't logical and if you think about it for two seconds you'd realize that. The assessed value of content produced in the United States exceeds that of the actual gross domestic product.
Lastly the only thing government should have the power to do is criminalize violent and non-voluntary interactions/acts. Deprivation of someone’s actual real property for example, murder, dumping toxic waste, etc. A mere potential of some risk in and of itself should not be criminal act. ie driving without a license. Intentionally running someone over should be.
So, if you think the prices for a product are too expensive, that gives you the license to just take it without paying?
What about piracy because the media companies are too bone-headed to sell their media in my country?
You could start a media distribution company in your country and buy the license for your country. I admit that's impractical for most, but it's technically a subset of "if you think the prices for a product are too expensive".
And some of them add more bullshit on the packaging saying that if you open it you agree to the bullshit legal mumbo-jumbo user agreement sealed inside the packaging that you can't read before opening it.
When courts in some countries struck down those sorts of hidden agreements, publishers started to print on the box the URL of the agreement that applies to a work, which URL remains valid as long as the work remains in print. This way, the prospective licensee has reasonable access to view the terms before purchase.
You know, the kind that a few friends with lead pipes can fix quickly and with a lasting effect.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, the Constitution specifically aims to protect the arts and sciences and to promote their progress. There is no incentive to create intellectual works rather than physical ones if there is no ability to sell those works. This is achieved by giving intellectual property creators the right to control the distribution of their work for a period of time. While there is no right that the distribution is profitable (your straw man argument), there is a right to prevent others from distributing your unique work. Piracy deprives content creators of the right to control the distribution of their work, which in turn impedes the development of the sciences and the arts.
AMO robo-signs unlisted Firefox extensions without any sort of manual review of whether or not an extension infringes a third party's copyright.
It isn't their trademark until they start doing business in the country
The Kodi project has distributed its software to users in other countries. What is "doing business"?
As soon as hollywood and people like yourself stop stealing hundreds of trillions of dollars worth of payments, codified in law that you owe us, then and only then will we perhaps consider granting you some form of protection under the law.
But until that day, you have no rights we are willing to grant you, and both hollywood and you can go fuck your thieving criminal selves.
You kinda nailed the Kodi issue. Its not their job to make it harder to use Kodi to watch pirated material. Its the pirates job to not pirate.
Edit: Captcha: informed
It isn't their trademark until they start doing business in the country
The Kodi project has distributed its software to users in other countries. What is "doing business"?
Umm, I think you need a lawyer tepples. It's a simple concept but it seems you need help understanding it.
What a dick.
I use it when content that I would like to rent is Not Available In My Area at any price. I also use it for getting TV streams of networks that are in my cable tier, but there is no logon for my cable service on the streaming site.
Actually it doesn't. Only MAY create laws and only for the useful arts, and that for a limited time.
Shame on you, you cut short his sentence --"and/or apply for registration of the mark in that country."
Canada has moved to a hybrid first-to-file trademark registration system. Prior users of the mark may still demonstrate that they have priority, but they have to litigate priority in court. Many countries, like China, are hybrid first-to-file countries, and many others are pue first-to-file countries.
Register your trademark or else:
"Whether your trademark is already the subject of a foreign registration, or whether an application for the mark has not yet been filed in any country, it would be prudent to be the first to file in Canada before the law permits others to file applications for your trademarks without having to claim use. While you could litigate later over who is entitled to priority for the mark, it would be far more cost effective to avoid this potential litigation by being the first to file."
Piracy is an acceptable thing to do. Copies of digital works do not cost the originators anything or in my case, deprive them of revenue because I have a finite amount of money (some of which I spend on copyrighted items). The alternatives are not "pirate or buy" but "pirate or do without".
He lied filling out the Trade Mark application. If he then used it to shake down companies for more than $5,000 ($10,000 if in Toronto), the RCMP will investigate it. (RCMP = Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Canada's national police force)
Privacy lawsuits? Wtf? Did you mean "piracy" and too dumb to read?
It doesn't say what you think it says.
Property is theft.
The 10th amendment should have made that section null and void.
there is nothing of value lost
that argument has been studied so many times going back to computer hobby club in 70s passing around disks and sharing.
If a person pirates then they wouldn't have paid for it in the first place. And since it's only a copy then piracy for personal use harms noone and no corporations.
See
http://www.businessinsider.com...
quote:
Downloading music and movies without authorization will remain legal in Switzerland after the conclusion of a government study found that the practise doesn't cause enough damage to copyright holders to warrant making it illegal
Can't wait to try it!
Minix for ever, Linux never!
Q: Why is starting a comment in the Subject: field incredibly irritating?
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
It's funny that Microsoft is willing to fight trademark trolls but they seem to show little sincere interest in fighting piracy. Windows is widely used for illegal streaming services, and there doesn't seem to be much progress by Microsoft to ensure that it is used for lawful purposes. This seems like karma to me. When you create a product and don't care whether it's used to break the law, I have a hard time finding sympathy that you also have to deal with trademark trolls. The name Windows is becoming synonymous with piracy, and Microsoft needs to step up and prevent this.
Before you say that Windows has legal uses ad [sic!] there the piracy doesn't matter, let me point out that there are plenty of legal uses. This doesn't mean, however, that car manufacturers and dealers shouldn't take steps to try to avoid selling cars to speeders and design their cars to make it less likely that they will be used for criminal purposes. Likewise, Microsoft should take steps to prevent their software from being used for piracy. And piracy isn't defensible, either. If you don't want to pay the prices for films that don't meet your standards, the appropriate thing to do is simply don't watch them. Your criticisms of the film industry do not justify theft, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
Rudolf Hess edited Mein Kampf. He was the very first grammar nazi.
I see your (somewhat incorrect) interpretation of the Constitution.
However, I raise you one 'violation of the social contract' that was done by copyright extension.
You see, copyright has always been what is called a balanced social contract. Society as a whole carry the cost of both allowing and enforcing copyright, at no cost to the copyright owners - and in return the 'works' are supposed to become the property of that society after a reasonable time to allow for a suitable profit to be made.
However, as I am sure you know (because only someone with an interest would write the facile bs you did..) the opposite has been done. These days profits can be taken much much quicker on works than previously, however copyright have been extended to the point where it is unlikely that society will EVER receive their part of the contract.
Now, a contract where one party can never benefit is generally considered legally unenforceable.
So, it SHOULD be considered entirely appropriate to ignore the copyright side of that agreement, and the holders are ignoring the other side.
Of course, the government does not profit from such a view, so use force of arms to stop it - that does not however make it 'right', just enforced.
Piracy, not privacy.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
Mod parent up!
Best reply to that non obvious trawl.
What if I already paid for it through copy right levies?
Because where I live (Switzerland) , all data carriers have an imposed levy for the MAFIAA:
CDR(W), DVDR(W), BDR(W), (u) SD(HC/XC) cards, harddisks, et cetera.
I predominantly buy data carriers, mostly HDs and uSD cards for my own data, on pc's, in phones, cameras, etc.
Still, I can't ever get out from paying the MAFIA.
So downloading is a fair deal, though it may not be in other countries.
Stop crying about piracy, often there is none.
doncha think?
a little too many words for ironic, ya know I really do think
I like to point out that Hollywood was founded by people trying to avoid what they thought were unfair copyright laws. Oh how times have changed. The original creators of Hollywood were pirates as well
You just asserted that profit is the only reason ("incentive") to create. This illustrates the problem with American culture: they literally can't understand why someone would do something if they won't get money for it.
That's a strange way to misspell indigenous genocide, political bullying, exiling, and slavery.
America, like all other Western countries, was built on the backs of the poor and unfortunate to serve the imperialists. Many of our founding fathers were assholes in their own right, and can hardly be thanked for any real work put into this country.
Remember that the next time you start hating on illegals or the poor. Without them, this country wouldn't exist.
Or because the media companies make it too onerous to view legitimately.
I'd prefer to pay for most of the content I download-- I'd get (in theory) better quality. But torrenting a show is far easier, even with VPN + Tor, than trying to figure out which streaming service has the particular show you're interested in, finding out that the streaming service only has 2-3 episodes, or a few clips, or wants you to pay for every single time you view an episode. Sure, $2 an episode isn't that bad... unless you're trying to watch an entire series in order that has 200+ episodes. That's more expensive than trying to buy the now-out-of-print DVD sets of a series.
It's supply and demand-- the media industry doesn't want to supply what the consumer demands, and then they wonder why nobody likes them, and they're all going broke. Instead of owning up to the problems, they just point and yell "PIRACY!!!" because it's easier than actually admitting that their draconian distribution models for increasingly vapid unoriginal content is thoroughly broken.
Star Trek: Discovery is going to be a classic example of how to completely fail at something that should be easy-- First new Star Trek television series in 12 years, and it's going to be a disaster because of schizoid licensing "deals" between Paramount and CBS, and because they're trying to use Discovery to prop up yet-another-streaming-service no one wants.
No, the correct response is to recognise that copyright law is entirely broken
Agreed.
and to act accordingly.
If something is "entirely broken", sitting around and complaining that it is "entirely broken" will fix nothing. "[T]o act accordingly", you will have to instead make a plan to fix that which is "entirely broken". This may involve forming your own distributor so that campaign and PAC contributions from your distributor can outweigh campaign and PAC contributions from other distributors who take advantage of the "entirely broken" situation.
How much does it cost to prepare and file a trademark registration in all countries of the world?
Per the quote, less.