15 ms·

I think there's a valid distinction between a product that can be misused but has a legitimate use, and a product solely built to enable illegal activity. If th

I think there's a valid distinction between a product that can be misused but has a legitimate use, and a product solely built to enable illegal activity. If the business knows their product isn't useful for anything but crime, the only reason they're in business is the crime. VLC Media Player is a multi-use video player sometimes used to play pirated videos. BitTorrent is a peer-to-peer file transfer protocol designed to transfer and distribute large files efficiently. Popcorn Time is explicitly built to find and play illegally shared content.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
But that's not what Grokster said. It was to the effect that if you promote your service for piracy then you're liable even if it does have non-infringing uses. The result has, ironically, been quite an inconvenience for copyright holders, because it meant that the developers of piracy-enabling services merely stopped promoting them as such even though nothing about the technology was any different, which made it harder to shut them down because of the optics. If you have someone producing a mixed-use technology but actively promoting it for infringement then it's easier to convince a judge that they're the bad guys. Now that any company with lawyers doesn't do that anymore, it's a lot harder to paint that picture. Technology-wise there isn't much in Popcorn Time that wouldn't still be there in a legitimate YouTube competitor. And this gets double complicated when it's software rather than a service because (presumably) the liability for promoting infringement would be on the people doing the promoting, but what does that mean for the software? What happens if somebody else who isn't promoting infringement starts distributing a version of the same code? Is it different than some independent code which does exactly the same thing?
karagenit 7y ago
Practically I agree with you, but I'm not sure there actually is a distinction in a legal sense. Technically Popcorn Time can be used to watch legal/non-pirated content, so they have some form of plausible deniability. I could go down the street to the smoke shop and buy myself a bong right now, because technically I could use it to smoke tobacco, even though everyone knows that's not what 99% of people are doing with them. You don't see the ATF or DEA shutting them down.
- ocdtrekkie 7y ago
  In this case, I think the reason their plausible deniability goes out the window is the pre-configured options to search for illegal content. It'll be interesting to see if removing those files from Popcorn Time does, in fact, get them reinstated.
  - Thorentis 7y ago
    This is (legally) a fair point. If you're linking to illegal content then perhaps that is grounds under this particular ruling for a takedown. In general though, I object to links themselves being illegal content. If you give somebody the phone number of a drug dealer, can you be charged with selling or distribution of drugs?
    - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
      The law fundamentally builds on the concept of intent: Did I give you Steve's phone number, or did I give you the phone number of Steve, my drug dealer, because you were interested in buying drugs from him. Criminal law depends on both the actual act, and the intention to commit a crime. That's why most technical workarounds people claim should exempt them from the law tend to not work: The intent is the same. Disclaimer: I do not actually have a drug dealer named Steve.
      - Thorentis 7y ago
        Proving intent is the most difficult part of criminal law. If intent was all that mattered, why does Google remove copyrighted links from its search results? The intent for Google clearly isn't to distribute illegal content, but to provide links to as much as possible on the web (or at least, it used to be). But even DDG compiles with DMCA. A generic search engine is still required by law to take down links, even if the intent isn't there. Which proves that the mere act of "handing over a phone number" is enough.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago

But that's not what Grokster said. It was to the effect that if you promote your service for piracy then you're liable even if it does have non-infringing uses. The result has, ironically, been quite an inconvenience for copyright holders, because it meant that the developers of piracy-enabling services merely stopped promoting them as such even though nothing about the technology was any different, which made it harder to shut them down because of the optics. If you have someone producing a mixed-use technology but actively promoting it for infringement then it's easier to convince a judge that they're the bad guys. Now that any company with lawyers doesn't do that anymore, it's a lot harder to paint that picture. Technology-wise there isn't much in Popcorn Time that wouldn't still be there in a legitimate YouTube competitor. And this gets double complicated when it's software rather than a service because (presumably) the liability for promoting infringement would be on the people doing the promoting, but what does that mean for the software? What happens if somebody else who isn't promoting infringement starts distributing a version of the same code? Is it different than some independent code which does exactly the same thing?

karagenit 7y ago

Practically I agree with you, but I'm not sure there actually is a distinction in a legal sense. Technically Popcorn Time can be used to watch legal/non-pirated content, so they have some form of plausible deniability. I could go down the street to the smoke shop and buy myself a bong right now, because technically I could use it to smoke tobacco, even though everyone knows that's not what 99% of people are doing with them. You don't see the ATF or DEA shutting them down.

ocdtrekkie 7y ago
In this case, I think the reason their plausible deniability goes out the window is the pre-configured options to search for illegal content. It'll be interesting to see if removing those files from Popcorn Time does, in fact, get them reinstated.
- Thorentis 7y ago
  This is (legally) a fair point. If you're linking to illegal content then perhaps that is grounds under this particular ruling for a takedown. In general though, I object to links themselves being illegal content. If you give somebody the phone number of a drug dealer, can you be charged with selling or distribution of drugs?
  - ocdtrekkie 7y ago
    The law fundamentally builds on the concept of intent: Did I give you Steve's phone number, or did I give you the phone number of Steve, my drug dealer, because you were interested in buying drugs from him. Criminal law depends on both the actual act, and the intention to commit a crime. That's why most technical workarounds people claim should exempt them from the law tend to not work: The intent is the same. Disclaimer: I do not actually have a drug dealer named Steve.
    - Thorentis 7y ago
      Proving intent is the most difficult part of criminal law. If intent was all that mattered, why does Google remove copyrighted links from its search results? The intent for Google clearly isn't to distribute illegal content, but to provide links to as much as possible on the web (or at least, it used to be). But even DDG compiles with DMCA. A generic search engine is still required by law to take down links, even if the intent isn't there. Which proves that the mere act of "handing over a phone number" is enough.