What should be allowed in Emby Plugins?

[soderlund 221]

Hi everyone,

This post is primarily aimed at the Emby developers, as I believe we need to have a discussion about what should and should not be allowed in Emby plugins.

The AI era is here, and building a plugin is becoming easier than ever. This is great, as it opens up new possibilities for Emby and allows developers to experiment with ideas that might otherwise never have been realized. However, it also raises some questions about where we should draw the line when it comes to plugins that operate in grey areas.

Reference:
Emby Development Policy: https://dev.emby.media/doc/plugins/dev/Development-Policy.html

 

There have been cases where plugins have been removed from the catalog for violating the development policy. However, there have also been cases where plugins have been removed or banned from the forum, even when they were never available in the official catalog. And also similar plugins that seems to be allowed.

I believe this raises an important question: What exactly are the rules, and are they applied consistently?

Why I'm bringing this up

I'll admit that my motivation is partly selfish. I'm developing a plugin of my own, and I've received a feature request to integrate with Sonarr and Radarr. This got me thinking about where Emby draws the line between acceptable functionality and functionality that is considered unacceptable.

Sonarr and Radarr are, in themselves, media management and organization tools. They can be used for perfectly legitimate purposes, even if they are also commonly associated with automated downloads of copyrighted content.

The same applies to torrent clients such as qBittorrent, Deluge and µTorrent. These are legitimate pieces of software with many lawful uses. Whether someone uses them to download copyrighted material without permission is a separate question.

So, should a plugin be prohibited from integrating with these applications simply because they can be used for piracy?

Where do we draw the line?

Consider Emby itself. It is designed to organize and stream media, but the software doesn't control where every user obtains their content. Emby supports IPTV through M3U playlists, for example. IPTV is a legitimate technology, but it can also be used to access unauthorized streams. There is also the official Web Stream plugin, which allows users to access online video content. Depending on the source, that content may be perfectly legitimate or not.

The important distinction, in my opinion, is between providing a general-purpose tool and actively facilitating copyright infringement. A tool that can be used illegally is not necessarily an illegal tool. Its existence alone doesn't establish how it will be used.

Of course, there are situations where software goes beyond providing general-purpose functionality. A plugin that explicitly targets unauthorized sources, provides access to pirated content, or is designed primarily to facilitate copyright infringement is a different matter.

I'm not suggesting that Emby should ignore those distinctions. I'm asking where those distinctions are actually drawn.

The catalog versus the forum

I understand that there is a difference between a plugin published in the official catalog and one that is merely shared as a DLL on the forum. A plugin in the official catalog is effectively being distributed and endorsed as part of the Emby ecosystem. It makes sense for Emby to apply stricter requirements to plugins it officially distributes. However, if certain functionality is considered unacceptable even outside the catalog, I believe the same underlying principles should apply consistently.

At the moment, I can find plugins discussed on the forum that integrate with Sonarr/Radarr/Seerr. Yet other plugins appear to have faced restrictions or removal. I'm not claiming that these plugins are necessarily identical in their functionality or circumstances. That is precisely why I think clearer guidelines would be useful.

If integrating with these applications is acceptable in some cases but not in others, what determines the difference?

Is it the plugin's intended purpose? The functionality it provides? Whether it directly facilitates access to unauthorized content? Or simply where the plugin is distributed?
These are important distinctions, and developers should be able to understand them before investing time in building a feature that might later be rejected.

My personal view

My own position is fairly liberal: software shouldn't be prohibited simply because it could be used to break the law. I believe responsibility also lies with the person using the software. We shouldn't automatically assume that someone intends to use a tool illegally just because it is capable of supporting an illegal activity.

That doesn't mean developers should be free to build anything without restrictions. Emby has every right to establish rules for its ecosystem, and I understand the need to protect both the platform and its reputation.

But those rules should be clear, proportionate and consistently enforced. Otherwise, developers are left guessing what is acceptable, and similar functionality may be treated differently depending on who develops it or where it is published.

To put it simply: should we ban cars because they can be driven above the speed limit?

Of course not. We regulate how they are used, and we hold people accountable when they break the law. I believe there is a similar distinction to be made when discussing general-purpose software and plugins.

The question for the Emby developers

I'm not asking for a blanket approval of every plugin or every possible integration.

I'm asking for a clearer explanation of where Emby draws the line:

• What is permitted in the official plugin catalog?

• What is permitted to be shared on the forum but not included in the catalog?

• What functionality is prohibited entirely, regardless of where a plugin is distributed?

• What distinguishes an acceptable integration with tools such as Sonarr, Radarr or Seerr from an unacceptable one?

Most importantly, what objective criteria are used to make these decisions, and how are they applied consistently?

I think a clearer policy would benefit everyone: the developers maintaining Emby, the people building plugins, and the users who depend on them.

I'd be interested to hear the Emby developers' perspective on this.

 

Note: English is not my native language, so this post has been translated and polished with the help of AI.

[muiz 41]

I am not from Emby But as far as i know my plugin is the only one who can connect to radarr and Sonarr and is new and now this post.
And how radarr and Sonarr would be illegal? This doesnt make sense.
If this was the case then apps like Seerr, Tofa etc where also illegal. and they are not.
If mine was against the Emby policy they would already told me.
And i  know this wasnt pointed at me or my plugin, but it feels a bit if it is.
Besides that i dont know what your problem is with all this. And then such a long AI post about it?
No offence. Just wondering.
 

[Luke 43491]

So in a perfect world you would only implement supplied interfaces and not do anything outside of that. Like for example IMetadataProvider.

 But of course that would require us to spend more time building these interfaces up so that you can do what you want to do.

[yocker 2067]

1 hour ago, muiz said:

I am not from Emby But as far as i know my plugin is the only one who can connect to radarr and Sonarr and is new and now this post.
And how radarr and Sonarr would be illegal? This doesnt make sense.
If this was the case then apps like Seerr, Tofa etc where also illegal. and they are not.
If mine was against the Emby policy they would already told me.
And i  know this wasnt pointed at me or my plugin, but it feels a bit if it is.
Besides that i dont know what your problem is with all this. And then such a long AI post about it?
No offence. Just wondering.
 

I can't speak for Emby either but they have said, what i understood to be something on the lines of that, they don't allow plugins to change the UI because of fear of Google, Samsung and so on to see Emby as a pirate hub and ban them from the stores.

I can fully understand that as being thrown off a store would cause monetary problems not to speak of problems for users.

[muiz 41]

6 hours ago, yocker said:

I can't speak for Emby either but they have said, what i understood to be something on the lines of that, they don't allow plugins to change the UI because of fear of Google, Samsung and so on to see Emby as a pirate hub and ban them from the stores.

I can fully understand that as being thrown off a store would cause monetary problems not to speak of problems for users.

Change UI is anorher thing. Mine does this only for a button. And web only. So if change UI was a problem. Then most plugins will be a problem. Even yours.

[soderlund 221]

8 hours ago, muiz said:

I am not from Emby But as far as i know my plugin is the only one who can connect to radarr and Sonarr and is new and now this post.
And how radarr and Sonarr would be illegal? This doesnt make sense.
If this was the case then apps like Seerr, Tofa etc where also illegal. and they are not.
If mine was against the Emby policy they would already told me.
And i  know this wasnt pointed at me or my plugin, but it feels a bit if it is.
Besides that i dont know what your problem is with all this. And then such a long AI post about it?
No offence. Just wondering.
 

And that is my point, the software itself isn't any illegal but in the history plugins connected to this grey-zone software has not been allowed. And I want to raise the discussion about it. 
And no, this is not aimed at you or your plugin at all, like I said I want to implement a feature like this as well, hence the question and need for clarification.

Yes it was a long AI post, but I did write everything in my native language first and I'm not going to apologize for not bein native English speaker. 

My problem with this is that it's not clear what is allowed and what not, and i want some better guidelines. 

[muiz 41]

1 hour ago, soderlund said:

And that is my point, the software itself isn't any illegal but in the history plugins connected to this grey-zone software has not been allowed. And I want to raise the discussion about it. 
And no, this is not aimed at you or your plugin at all, like I said I want to implement a feature like this as well, hence the question and need for clarification.

Yes it was a long AI post, but I did write everything in my native language first and I'm not going to apologize for not bein native English speaker. 

My problem with this is that it's not clear what is allowed and what not, and i want some better guidelines. 

Like i said : No offence
And as for me. I did look into the policy before post anything. And i did not saw any problems.
Things like Radarr and Sonarr are just tools. Nothing illegal there.
English isnt my native language also. That was not what i ment. Im sorry if that made you feel that way.

[visproduction 379]

Quick note: Looking at https://sonarr.tv/, I see this statement:

 

Quote

Automatic Failed Download Handling

Sonarr makes failed downloads a thing of the past. Password protected releases, missing repair blocks or virtually any other reason? no worries. Sonarr will automatically block the release and try another one until it finds one that works.

I can imagine a software release provider seeing this, might decide that any product related, should not be listed on their service.  The software release service may have experience with legal challenges, where they may have had to pay out penalties.  You can claim that this feature is only a part of the overall use and individual users should be responsibile for their own actions and not hold a software product at fault.  That doesn't change the fact that any judgement can have a lot of zeros in the penalty.  If the release service legal says it doesn't want this, related software can get thrown out of the service and no more product releases.

I don't know how accurate this might be.  I am just speculating. Is it a real risk?  Where is the value to Emby for taking the risk?

Edited October 27 by visproduction

[yocker 2067]

2 hours ago, muiz said:

Change UI is anorher thing. Mine does this only for a button. And web only. So if change UI was a problem. Then most plugins will be a problem. Even yours.

I meant like adding new settings options in the client it self and so on.
For example, i can easily see how allowing users to add a dedicated page for piracy stuff in the client UI it self would cause companies to re-consider having the app in the store.
IMO Emby is already borderline as is.

I''n the end i ofc. don't know as i'm not one of the tech companies or Emby.

[muiz 41]

17 minutes ago, yocker said:

I meant like adding new settings options in the client it self and so on.
For example, i can easily see how allowing users to add a dedicated page for piracy stuff in the client UI it self would cause companies to re-consider having the app in the store.
IMO Emby is already borderline as is.

I''n the end i ofc. don't know as i'm not one of the tech companies or Emby.

The app in the store is plain Emby. Nothing more nothing less.
And as far as i know, and im new to this plugins. Apps for android etc are not affected or changed.

[yocker 2067]

2 minutes ago, muiz said:

The app in the store is plain Emby. Nothing more nothing less.
And as far as i know, and im new to this plugins. Apps for android etc are not affected or changed.

Yes but as i understand it Emby doesn't allow any plugin to change the UI in the apps because of those concerns.
It's the same with the server/webclient though HTML can ofc. be changed but that won't work in the clients.

[Luke 43491]

7 hours ago, muiz said:

The app in the store is plain Emby. Nothing more nothing less.
And as far as i know, and im new to this plugins. Apps for android etc are not affected or changed.

When the store sees something in our app, they assume it is Emby and come down hard on us. They don't stop and think oh wait maybe that's someone else's server with that content, or maybe it's coming from a plugin.

[muiz 41]

5 minutes ago, Luke said:

When the store sees something in our app, they assume it is Emby and come down hard on us. They don't stop and think oh wait maybe that's someone else's server with that content, or maybe it's coming from a plugin.

How do they see peoples server?

[Luke 43491]

Just now, muiz said:

How do they see peoples server?

I don't know, but it has happened where we get sudden rejections for pirated content and then we find out they connected to some server that they found from searching around.

[muiz 41]

1 minute ago, Luke said:

I don't know, but it has happened where we get sudden rejections for pirated content and then we find out they connected to some server that they found from searching around.

Strange behaviour from them if you ask me,.Is that even legal?
So when i buy something no matter what.  And i alter it and maybe in a dangerous way. Can the store where i bought it from being held responsible? Besides that, there are many plugins to find. And those are not here on the forum. So lets say someone makes illegal things in plugins and they see those. The blame is on Emby?
Im no lawyer, but i dont know how they get away with that?

[yocker 2067]

10 minutes ago, Luke said:

I don't know, but it has happened where we get sudden rejections for pirated content and then we find out they connected to some server that they found from searching around.

I'm the last to defend companies like for example Google but sounds like they found some reddit thread discussing it or something.
Other wise it would be a huge invasion of privacy and i'm sure the EU would not like that.  

[Luke 43491]

9 minutes ago, muiz said:

Strange behaviour from them if you ask me,.Is that even legal?
So when i buy something no matter what.  And i alter it and maybe in a dangerous way. Can the store where i bought it from being held responsible? Besides that, there are many plugins to find. And those are not here on the forum. So lets say someone makes illegal things in plugins and they see those. The blame is on Emby?
Im no lawyer, but i dont know how they get away with that?

They can approve or reject for any reason they want. There are no laws requiring them to review in a certain way.

[MediaIntelNUC 78]

19 hours ago, Luke said:

They can approve or reject for any reason they want. There are no laws requiring them to review in a certain way.

THIS, i know from personal experience to be true.