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."
It's funny that Kodi is willing to fight trademark trolls but they seem to show little sincere interest in fighting piracy. Kodi is widely used for illegal streaming services, and there doesn't seem to be much progress by the Kodi project 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 Kodi is becoming synonymous with piracy, and the developers need to step up and prevent this.
Before you say that Kodi has legal uses ad there the piracy doesn't matter, let me point out that there are plenty of legal uses. This doesn't mean, however, that gun manufacturers and dealers shouldn't take steps to try to avoid selling guns to criminals and design their guns to make it less likely that they will be used for criminal purposes. Likewise, Kodi developers 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.
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.
Even Christopher Dale Reimer (cdreimer) knows this.
You have to protect your intellectual property internationally.
cdreimer even has his intellectual property protected in Russia and the Russians comply to his DMCA notice at will.
Why doesn't Kodi hire creimer to take care of those problems?
NUKE CANADA!
It's nothing but a USA wannabe!
It isn't their trademark until they start doing business in the country and/or apply for registration of the mark in that country.
Until then it is not their trademark, not theirs to defend, and good on the 'trolls'.
America will not be so basely demeaned. Threatening letters are what built this country!
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.
Your criticisms of the film industry do not justify theft, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
This is BS. Hollywood and the rest of the movie industry abuse unfair and unjust copyright laws to destroy the free market and make a hell of lot more money than they deserve. Any time one imposes restrictions on the freedom of others, one destroys the free market. No actor should be worth close to a billion dollars for spewing hot air. I will not shed any tears for the movie industry if people use KODI to watch their shit (mostly libtard propaganda) for free.
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.
AMO robo-signs unlisted Firefox extensions without any sort of manual review of whether or not an extension infringes a third party's copyright.
What a dick.
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.
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!
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.
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.
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.