17 ms·

This is clear DMCA abuse, the popcorn time repository itself does not contain copyrighted content. This is why using a centralized closed source service managed

This is clear DMCA abuse, the popcorn time repository itself does not contain copyrighted content. This is why using a centralized closed source service managed by a tech conglomerate as the “hub” of our open source movement might not always be for the best

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
Without seeing the attachments, it looks like at bare minimum, examples of copyrighted content were shown in their screenshots. But the main issue is that links to piracy was built in, such that a user could immediately download this and begin pirating content. Movie studios are most concerned that this could even lead to people pirating content without realizing that they're doing something illegal. Ultimately, choosing a centralized provider versus elsewhere doesn't have a lot of impact. The MPAA can send notices to your hosting provider, your domain registrar, your internet service provider, or ultimately, get the police to raid your house/office and confiscate your personal machines. The idea that the Internet exists outside of the real physical world, and you can just do whatever you want is a fantasy sold by science fiction, but exactly that: A fantasy.
- ddevault 6y ago
  This is some bootlicking nonsense. Screw the MPAA. How can anyone seriously defend them? We've known they were the bad guy for decades. The MPAA is a multi-billion dollar bully, that's the long and short of it. PopcornTime has never itself been guilty of copyright violation, even if its users have been, and the MPAA ought to know better. Even if they were going after it for showing copyrighted posters or frames in their screenshots, that's frivolous as hell and clearly covered by fair use. What they're really doing is bullying: they don't like what this application does, even though they know it's legal, so they'll utilize an broken law which is absolutely ripe for one-sided abuse by copyright holders to screw the little guy, knowing there's no oversight and will be no reprecussions for their behavior. Copyright must be abolished. The fact that anything created today will never enter the public domain within any of our lifetimes proves that the system has failed. We have an obligation to exercise civil disobedience to protest the broken system. I will shed no tears for billionares caught up in the flack. They never shed a tear for the tens of thousands of people they screwed with expensive lawsuits, nor the billions they screwed out of their rightful inheritance of the collective works of humanity.
  - isoskeles 6y ago
    I want to point out how absurd it is that you're talking about "civil disobedience" which amounts to watching video content without paying for it. One would think you're some sort of freedom fighter, but you're just advocating for watching tv shows and movies. Maybe walk back the rhetoric, calling people who disagree with you "bootlickers", etc.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      If I personally "watch video content" without paying for it, that doesn't amount to much. If everyone does, that amounts to a hell of a lot more. That's how civil disobedience works.
      - coredog64 6y ago
        The point behind civil disobedience is that you knowingly break the law because you both believe the law is absurd AND you’re prepared to accept the legal consequences in the hope that society will look on your example as the punishment not being appropriate and change the law.
        computerfriend 6y ago
        Being prepared for the consequences is just good advice for anything you do in life. But it's not an intrinsic part of civil disobedience, nor is being punished for said disobedience.
        a1369209993 6y ago
        No, the point behind civil disobedience is that you knowingly break the law in order to make the law harder to enforce, whether that's for PR reasons or - per the topic - because so many people are doing it that it's logistically impractical to make a dent in them.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Nobody likes the DMCA, but this thread is about whether the content falls afoul of it assuming it exists and is enforced. In this case the done is gray but probably closer to black as the tool explicitly links to sources for pirated content.
- sergiotapia 6y ago
  But your logic, my project should also be DMCA'd? https://github.com/sergiotapia/torrentinim https://github.com/sergiotapia/torrentinim
  - ocdtrekkie 6y ago
    I mean, if EZTV is something you've explicitly built support for, yeah... But if you aren't wildly popular and easy to use (see: Popcorn Time) it's unlikely anyone will actually care.
- esarbe 6y ago
  For a DMCA claim to be valid you have to own the copyright on the files you refer. For none of the files referred in the claim they own the copyright to. So the claim is bogus.
eropple 6y ago
> This is clear DMCA abuse I’m generally skeptical of these claims as the legal system typically doesn’t look super fondly on technically-correct “I’m not touching you” arguments. So has this been litigated sufficiently to state this with such conviction? I’m not sufficiently familiar to know.
- throwaway327843 6y ago
  Let's sail the high seas matey! https://github.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy https://github.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy
  - znpy 6y ago
    I'm cloning that, just in case.
- jmspring 6y ago
  I'm going with it was an excuse to make a unnamed dig at Microsoft owning Github.
- Natsu 6y ago
  Well, the DMCA is supposedly only for taking down things you actually have the copyright to. I don't think that most DMCA abuse ever gets litigated and a lot of it consists of spam letters claiming that X is infringing on their copyright of Y, even when this is absurd. Alas, the law only has perjury when their claim to own Y is false, not when their claim to own X is wrong, however absurd that claim my be. They may have other legal claims against PopcornTime for facilitating piracy on whatever basis, but I sincerely doubt they actually own any of the copyrights to the code itself, which is ostensibly what they claim when filing a DMCA claim. But hosts generally respond even to defective DMCA notices, so they've learned just to demand takedowns first and sort anything else out after the fact. There's no reason to expend any effort if they can get what they want with a simple letter and that's something I've learned holds true across most legal endeavors. It seems like a lawyer's first action is almost always to draft a letter demanding whatever they want on whatever basis, oftentimes getting results for a single, rather expensive piece of legal letterhead.
wp381640 6y ago
The notice points out that they provide source / code functionality in the form of their scrapers and providers that take magnet/torrent links from the usualy suspects of sources This goes back to the whole linking to infringing content is infringement, especially when the main purpose of the site / aggregator is to infringe The popcorn time name, brand and project has been steadily dying in any case - I found out a few months ago that a friend purchased a $60 a year VPN because popcorn time told him he needed it (that's the revenue model for the developers). Turns out they charged his card for close to $180
- lettergram 6y ago
  Your friend probably signed up for 3x years. Also I use magnet links to download drivers and OS’s all the time. It’s not illegal, although it could be used as such - at least the same way a website can. Shall we start DCMAing chromium or Firefox? Obviously, you can use the web browser for nefarious purposes.
  - wp381640 6y ago
    > Shall we start DCMAing chromium or Firefox? If Chromium or Firefox set their default homepages to 1337x or eztv and tied their search box into their results you'd bet they'd also get an DMCA notice Google remove the links from _search results_
    - grizzles 6y ago
      No they don't. Literally the first thing I tried had a link to 1337x: https://www.google.com/search?q=bc6dbb81c1218cb19c54cafc3ebd4db0b6a721be https://www.google.com/search?q=bc6dbb81c1218cb19c54cafc3ebd...
      - wp381640 6y ago
        your own example has a link to the lumen db with a list of DMCA takedowns against that search ... the third one has 11 different links to 1337x https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20184101 https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20184101
briandear 6y ago
It’s a tool that has the stated purpose of violating copyright and essentially stealing. Even though you could use it for legal purposes, their website specifically says “watch TV shows...” If the creator isn’t getting paid for you to watch, then it’s theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s stealing bits, or stealing gold. It’s theft. Rationalize all you want, but if the owner of the content is having their content used against their will, then you are violating their rights. If the code were an ATM pin code cracker, would that be any different? After all, money is just data right? Just bits stored at the bank. Let’s also stop conflating “open source” with “right to steal.” Completely different things. If you download a pirate movie, that’s theft — it weakens the concept of open source when it gets lumped into the movement for “free” content. It’s ironic that a lot of open source people love to talk about licenses — while desiring enforcement of those licenses while at the same time arguing that the license to use someone else’s work is fair to violate.
- oneplane 6y ago
  The problem with that statement is that in the eyes of the media consumer, nothing was stolen because it was duplicated and thus nobody 'lost' anything. With money, that wouldn't be the case because it can only exist in one place at a time. Media, however, is not taken from one place and put in another place, but is copied. On the other hand, the 'stealing' isn't as much the media, as it is the 'consuming' of it. I'm not sure what the correct terminology is, but a lot of people don't think of it as accessing information that isn't public and has a price to access it (be it books, movies, games), but the lawyers (and probably the 'legal owners') do look at it that way. Of course a lot of PR happens during wording and publication and it's much easier to say 'this bad person stole this movie' instead of 'this person gained access and consumed this information while not being allowed to do that'.
  - rbobby 6y ago
    > and thus nobody 'lost' anything Every illegal download reduces the size of the legal purchase marketplace.
- mcantelon 6y ago
parsimo2010 6y ago
I'm not so sure about it being DMCA abuse. You're likely to be convicted of murder if your wife ends up dead and you recently published something that said, "I'm not paying anyone to murder my wife, but if my wife ends up dead, I'll bet someone will randomly find $10k in a duffel bag." Judges and juries are people, not robots, and they can read between the lines. Talking around a crime by saying stuff like, "I'm not a pirate, I only published detailed instructions and make it really easy for other people to be a pirate" is not going to hold up in court. It's pretty clear that even if PopCornTime wasn't committing crimes themselves, they bore some responsibility by enabling other people to commit crimes. The discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal is a separate discussion, for now it is illegal and PopCornTime's number finally came up. They the aren't the first piracy enabling tool (UseNet, Napster, BitTorrent, etc.) and they won't be the last. But it is true that the systems that survive are decentralized. PopCornTime was/is pretty decentralized overall, they just took a hit at one of their centralized points. I'm sure there will be several new repositories that appear in other places around the web very soon.
- ObsoleteNerd 6y ago
  Yeah but this didn’t go through a court to decide whether they contributed to piracy happening, this was a DMCA takedown which is supposed to target a specific case of piracy itself. The DMCA is about “you pirated THIS” not “you are involved in pirating stuff”. So yes, this is an abuse of the DMCA, but also yes, PopCornTime contributes to piracy.
- wpietri 6y ago
  Publishing details on how to commit crime is definitely not illegal, so your analogy doesn't hold up here. Also, you can't simultaneously claim that they "bore some responsibility" and then try to put off "discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal". Claiming they have moral responsibility is opening a discussion about what's right and wrong, which is at the heart of any serious notion about what should be illegal.
  - parsimo2010 6y ago
    I absolutely can make a statement that as things stand now, something is illegal, while also mentioning that there may be value in discussing whether it should be legal or not. Here's another one: According to federal law (of the USA), recreational marijuana use is illegal. So anyone that smokes weed for fun (in the USA) is breaking the law, and that's a fact. But there is a separate discussion that we should have about whether we should legalize recreational marijuana use. I didn't take a position on the issue, but I do support at least having the discussion. I also did not claim that PopCornTime has a moral responsibility, I said that using clever phrasing doesn't make something illegal into something legal.
dlgeek 6y ago
Yep. I suspect the reason for it is to deanonymize the authors so they can sue them directly - you have to provide your name and contact information to make a valid counter-claim.
- floatingatoll 6y ago
  GitHub permits an “authorized party” to file the counterclaim on behalf of the authors.
vmception 6y ago
is there a way to host git repositories on the more distributed file systems? git repos don't need high performance so I feel like something like swarm or ipfs should be good enough
- simon1573 6y ago
  Keybase.io has support for git repos. Highly recommended!
  - crankylinuxuser 6y ago
    As an aside, what exactly is Keybase? Is it a GIT repo? A chat client? A cryptoscam? Something something identity?
    - rodonn 6y ago
      A little bit of all of those.
    - everfree 6y ago
      A cryptographic proof of identity platform, with a lot of bells and whistles
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  Yep - https://docs.ipfs.io/guides/examples/git/ https://docs.ipfs.io/guides/examples/git/
kevingadd 6y ago
Any service provider in the US will be required to comply with a DMCA notice, it doesn't matter who.
- wtallis 6y ago
  Service providers are not required to comply with a DMCA takedown notice. If they choose not to comply, they forfeit the safe harbor protections and could potentially be held liable for the infringement in a lawsuit. It's a risk assessment on the part of the service provider, but the law gives them strong legal protections if they choose to comply, so usually the only reason not to is that complying with a bogus takedown notice is bad PR.
cookiengineer 6y ago
I wonder why MPA didn't try to DMCA takedown Firefox and Chromium. I mean, copyrighted works are available through these "Projects", too, right?
- koheripbal 6y ago
  The obvious answer is that the majority use of Chromium and Firefox are not to circumvent copyright.
  - kaibee 6y ago
    Fortunately, as far as I'm aware, the legality of whether you can provide some service is not based on what the majority use-case is. Otherwise, cryptocurrency would probably be illegal immediately, as I'm pretty sure the current majority use-case is drugs and ransom payments.
    - ric2b 6y ago
      > as I'm pretty sure the current majority use-case is drugs and ransom payments. Pretty sure based on what?
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    I wonder if Plex could be in hot waters though. I guess they've been working hard trying to pivot to providing content themselves with a subscription but I'm sure 90% of the Plex use is still for hosting pirated content.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

Without seeing the attachments, it looks like at bare minimum, examples of copyrighted content were shown in their screenshots. But the main issue is that links to piracy was built in, such that a user could immediately download this and begin pirating content. Movie studios are most concerned that this could even lead to people pirating content without realizing that they're doing something illegal. Ultimately, choosing a centralized provider versus elsewhere doesn't have a lot of impact. The MPAA can send notices to your hosting provider, your domain registrar, your internet service provider, or ultimately, get the police to raid your house/office and confiscate your personal machines. The idea that the Internet exists outside of the real physical world, and you can just do whatever you want is a fantasy sold by science fiction, but exactly that: A fantasy.

ddevault 6y ago
This is some bootlicking nonsense. Screw the MPAA. How can anyone seriously defend them? We've known they were the bad guy for decades. The MPAA is a multi-billion dollar bully, that's the long and short of it. PopcornTime has never itself been guilty of copyright violation, even if its users have been, and the MPAA ought to know better. Even if they were going after it for showing copyrighted posters or frames in their screenshots, that's frivolous as hell and clearly covered by fair use. What they're really doing is bullying: they don't like what this application does, even though they know it's legal, so they'll utilize an broken law which is absolutely ripe for one-sided abuse by copyright holders to screw the little guy, knowing there's no oversight and will be no reprecussions for their behavior. Copyright must be abolished. The fact that anything created today will never enter the public domain within any of our lifetimes proves that the system has failed. We have an obligation to exercise civil disobedience to protest the broken system. I will shed no tears for billionares caught up in the flack. They never shed a tear for the tens of thousands of people they screwed with expensive lawsuits, nor the billions they screwed out of their rightful inheritance of the collective works of humanity.
- isoskeles 6y ago
  I want to point out how absurd it is that you're talking about "civil disobedience" which amounts to watching video content without paying for it. One would think you're some sort of freedom fighter, but you're just advocating for watching tv shows and movies. Maybe walk back the rhetoric, calling people who disagree with you "bootlickers", etc.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    If I personally "watch video content" without paying for it, that doesn't amount to much. If everyone does, that amounts to a hell of a lot more. That's how civil disobedience works.
    - coredog64 6y ago
      The point behind civil disobedience is that you knowingly break the law because you both believe the law is absurd AND you’re prepared to accept the legal consequences in the hope that society will look on your example as the punishment not being appropriate and change the law.
      - computerfriend 6y ago
        Being prepared for the consequences is just good advice for anything you do in life. But it's not an intrinsic part of civil disobedience, nor is being punished for said disobedience.
      - a1369209993 6y ago
        No, the point behind civil disobedience is that you knowingly break the law in order to make the law harder to enforce, whether that's for PR reasons or - per the topic - because so many people are doing it that it's logistically impractical to make a dent in them.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Nobody likes the DMCA, but this thread is about whether the content falls afoul of it assuming it exists and is enforced. In this case the done is gray but probably closer to black as the tool explicitly links to sources for pirated content.
sergiotapia 6y ago
But your logic, my project should also be DMCA'd? https://github.com/sergiotapia/torrentinim https://github.com/sergiotapia/torrentinim
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  I mean, if EZTV is something you've explicitly built support for, yeah... But if you aren't wildly popular and easy to use (see: Popcorn Time) it's unlikely anyone will actually care.
esarbe 6y ago
For a DMCA claim to be valid you have to own the copyright on the files you refer. For none of the files referred in the claim they own the copyright to. So the claim is bogus.

eropple 6y ago

> This is clear DMCA abuse I’m generally skeptical of these claims as the legal system typically doesn’t look super fondly on technically-correct “I’m not touching you” arguments. So has this been litigated sufficiently to state this with such conviction? I’m not sufficiently familiar to know.

throwaway327843 6y ago
Let's sail the high seas matey! https://github.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy https://github.com/Igglybuff/awesome-piracy
- znpy 6y ago
  I'm cloning that, just in case.
jmspring 6y ago
I'm going with it was an excuse to make a unnamed dig at Microsoft owning Github.
Natsu 6y ago
Well, the DMCA is supposedly only for taking down things you actually have the copyright to. I don't think that most DMCA abuse ever gets litigated and a lot of it consists of spam letters claiming that X is infringing on their copyright of Y, even when this is absurd. Alas, the law only has perjury when their claim to own Y is false, not when their claim to own X is wrong, however absurd that claim my be. They may have other legal claims against PopcornTime for facilitating piracy on whatever basis, but I sincerely doubt they actually own any of the copyrights to the code itself, which is ostensibly what they claim when filing a DMCA claim. But hosts generally respond even to defective DMCA notices, so they've learned just to demand takedowns first and sort anything else out after the fact. There's no reason to expend any effort if they can get what they want with a simple letter and that's something I've learned holds true across most legal endeavors. It seems like a lawyer's first action is almost always to draft a letter demanding whatever they want on whatever basis, oftentimes getting results for a single, rather expensive piece of legal letterhead.

wp381640 6y ago

The notice points out that they provide source / code functionality in the form of their scrapers and providers that take magnet/torrent links from the usualy suspects of sources This goes back to the whole linking to infringing content is infringement, especially when the main purpose of the site / aggregator is to infringe The popcorn time name, brand and project has been steadily dying in any case - I found out a few months ago that a friend purchased a $60 a year VPN because popcorn time told him he needed it (that's the revenue model for the developers). Turns out they charged his card for close to $180

lettergram 6y ago
Your friend probably signed up for 3x years. Also I use magnet links to download drivers and OS’s all the time. It’s not illegal, although it could be used as such - at least the same way a website can. Shall we start DCMAing chromium or Firefox? Obviously, you can use the web browser for nefarious purposes.
- wp381640 6y ago
  > Shall we start DCMAing chromium or Firefox? If Chromium or Firefox set their default homepages to 1337x or eztv and tied their search box into their results you'd bet they'd also get an DMCA notice Google remove the links from _search results_
  - grizzles 6y ago
    No they don't. Literally the first thing I tried had a link to 1337x: https://www.google.com/search?q=bc6dbb81c1218cb19c54cafc3ebd4db0b6a721be https://www.google.com/search?q=bc6dbb81c1218cb19c54cafc3ebd...
    - wp381640 6y ago
      your own example has a link to the lumen db with a list of DMCA takedowns against that search ... the third one has 11 different links to 1337x https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20184101 https://www.lumendatabase.org/notices/20184101

briandear 6y ago

It’s a tool that has the stated purpose of violating copyright and essentially stealing. Even though you could use it for legal purposes, their website specifically says “watch TV shows...” If the creator isn’t getting paid for you to watch, then it’s theft. Doesn’t matter if it’s stealing bits, or stealing gold. It’s theft. Rationalize all you want, but if the owner of the content is having their content used against their will, then you are violating their rights. If the code were an ATM pin code cracker, would that be any different? After all, money is just data right? Just bits stored at the bank. Let’s also stop conflating “open source” with “right to steal.” Completely different things. If you download a pirate movie, that’s theft — it weakens the concept of open source when it gets lumped into the movement for “free” content. It’s ironic that a lot of open source people love to talk about licenses — while desiring enforcement of those licenses while at the same time arguing that the license to use someone else’s work is fair to violate.

oneplane 6y ago
The problem with that statement is that in the eyes of the media consumer, nothing was stolen because it was duplicated and thus nobody 'lost' anything. With money, that wouldn't be the case because it can only exist in one place at a time. Media, however, is not taken from one place and put in another place, but is copied. On the other hand, the 'stealing' isn't as much the media, as it is the 'consuming' of it. I'm not sure what the correct terminology is, but a lot of people don't think of it as accessing information that isn't public and has a price to access it (be it books, movies, games), but the lawyers (and probably the 'legal owners') do look at it that way. Of course a lot of PR happens during wording and publication and it's much easier to say 'this bad person stole this movie' instead of 'this person gained access and consumed this information while not being allowed to do that'.
- rbobby 6y ago
  > and thus nobody 'lost' anything Every illegal download reduces the size of the legal purchase marketplace.
mcantelon 6y ago

parsimo2010 6y ago

I'm not so sure about it being DMCA abuse. You're likely to be convicted of murder if your wife ends up dead and you recently published something that said, "I'm not paying anyone to murder my wife, but if my wife ends up dead, I'll bet someone will randomly find $10k in a duffel bag." Judges and juries are people, not robots, and they can read between the lines. Talking around a crime by saying stuff like, "I'm not a pirate, I only published detailed instructions and make it really easy for other people to be a pirate" is not going to hold up in court. It's pretty clear that even if PopCornTime wasn't committing crimes themselves, they bore some responsibility by enabling other people to commit crimes. The discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal is a separate discussion, for now it is illegal and PopCornTime's number finally came up. They the aren't the first piracy enabling tool (UseNet, Napster, BitTorrent, etc.) and they won't be the last. But it is true that the systems that survive are decentralized. PopCornTime was/is pretty decentralized overall, they just took a hit at one of their centralized points. I'm sure there will be several new repositories that appear in other places around the web very soon.

ObsoleteNerd 6y ago
Yeah but this didn’t go through a court to decide whether they contributed to piracy happening, this was a DMCA takedown which is supposed to target a specific case of piracy itself. The DMCA is about “you pirated THIS” not “you are involved in pirating stuff”. So yes, this is an abuse of the DMCA, but also yes, PopCornTime contributes to piracy.
wpietri 6y ago
Publishing details on how to commit crime is definitely not illegal, so your analogy doesn't hold up here. Also, you can't simultaneously claim that they "bore some responsibility" and then try to put off "discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal". Claiming they have moral responsibility is opening a discussion about what's right and wrong, which is at the heart of any serious notion about what should be illegal.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  I absolutely can make a statement that as things stand now, something is illegal, while also mentioning that there may be value in discussing whether it should be legal or not. Here's another one: According to federal law (of the USA), recreational marijuana use is illegal. So anyone that smokes weed for fun (in the USA) is breaking the law, and that's a fact. But there is a separate discussion that we should have about whether we should legalize recreational marijuana use. I didn't take a position on the issue, but I do support at least having the discussion. I also did not claim that PopCornTime has a moral responsibility, I said that using clever phrasing doesn't make something illegal into something legal.

dlgeek 6y ago

Yep. I suspect the reason for it is to deanonymize the authors so they can sue them directly - you have to provide your name and contact information to make a valid counter-claim.

floatingatoll 6y ago
GitHub permits an “authorized party” to file the counterclaim on behalf of the authors.

vmception 6y ago

is there a way to host git repositories on the more distributed file systems? git repos don't need high performance so I feel like something like swarm or ipfs should be good enough

simon1573 6y ago
Keybase.io has support for git repos. Highly recommended!
- crankylinuxuser 6y ago
  As an aside, what exactly is Keybase? Is it a GIT repo? A chat client? A cryptoscam? Something something identity?
  - rodonn 6y ago
    A little bit of all of those.
  - everfree 6y ago
    A cryptographic proof of identity platform, with a lot of bells and whistles
hundchenkatze 6y ago
Yep - https://docs.ipfs.io/guides/examples/git/ https://docs.ipfs.io/guides/examples/git/

kevingadd 6y ago

Any service provider in the US will be required to comply with a DMCA notice, it doesn't matter who.

wtallis 6y ago
Service providers are not required to comply with a DMCA takedown notice. If they choose not to comply, they forfeit the safe harbor protections and could potentially be held liable for the infringement in a lawsuit. It's a risk assessment on the part of the service provider, but the law gives them strong legal protections if they choose to comply, so usually the only reason not to is that complying with a bogus takedown notice is bad PR.

cookiengineer 6y ago

I wonder why MPA didn't try to DMCA takedown Firefox and Chromium. I mean, copyrighted works are available through these "Projects", too, right?

koheripbal 6y ago
The obvious answer is that the majority use of Chromium and Firefox are not to circumvent copyright.
- kaibee 6y ago
  Fortunately, as far as I'm aware, the legality of whether you can provide some service is not based on what the majority use-case is. Otherwise, cryptocurrency would probably be illegal immediately, as I'm pretty sure the current majority use-case is drugs and ransom payments.
  - ric2b 6y ago
    > as I'm pretty sure the current majority use-case is drugs and ransom payments. Pretty sure based on what?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  I wonder if Plex could be in hot waters though. I guess they've been working hard trying to pivot to providing content themselves with a subscription but I'm sure 90% of the Plex use is still for hosting pirated content.