5 ms·

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-bil

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.
- ddevault 6y ago
  Wrong. Telling people how to find people who will share copyrighted content isn't copyright infringement. Sharing copyrighted content is copyright infringement. It's a rather obvious difference. In either case, I side against the copyright owner.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Unfortunately the law does not see it that way. Your or my insistence that this is ridiculous doesn’t change the fact that this probably isn’t abuse of the DMCA.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. In the case of PopcornTime, this is an abuse of the DMCA, plain and square. I'm also pointing out that in clear-cut cases of the DMCA, I think the law is wrong, and I side with the defendant, in spite of the law. The law is not the arbiter of my personal code of ethics.
      - saagarjha 6y ago
        The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. In the case of PopcornTime, this is an abuse of the DMCA, plain and square. > The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. and less about this: > I'm also pointing out that in clear-cut cases of the DMCA, I think the law is wrong, and I side with the defendant, in spite of the law. The law is not the arbiter of my personal code of ethics. I suspect we have similar opinions of the DMCA, but would very much prefer if we didn't conflate "I dislike the DMCA" with "I think this is an abuse of the DMCA (specifically: regardless of my opinion on the DMCA, I think this is an overreach)". It's like if we were discussing whether a person sentenced to death is guilty or not, and you came in and said, "I can't possibly see why we could side against the victim, I don't like them, the death penalty is stupid". All of which might even be an opinion shared by the people discussing it, but not only are you off topic but you're doing your argument a disservice as you're tying it to something that's not what you are arguing. (I'm being a stickler on this, because like I said, I likely agree with your viewpoint and would very much rather you not allow people to come up with lazy responses to you.)
briandear 6y ago
The little guy can get a Netflix or Hulu subscription. It isn’t like someone has locked away a Van Gogh painting and has ordered all prints destroyed. Don’t like Hulu or Netflix? Start your own company and negotiate your own deals with the content owners.
- ddevault 6y ago
  No. That implies that I have any respect for content owners or any willingness to play by their rules - and I don't, and I won't. >It isn’t like someone has locked away a Van Gogh painting It is exactly like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault
ocdtrekkie 6y ago
I think big pharma companies are corrupt and charge too much, but I wouldn't rob a drug store because of it. Similarly, just because copyright terms are horrifically overextended doesn't mean I think it's okay to steal movies.
- ddevault 6y ago
  Robbing drug stores is different. You're hurting someone who isn't at fault - your local pharmacist - and stealing something of material value. Now, if you want to talk about synthesising "copyrighted" drugs and giving them away, or even selling them for a fraction of the price, I'm with you 100%.
  - a1369209993 6y ago
    > synthesising "copyrighted" drugs Patented; it's called "patented". And thanks to the magic of supply and demand, even selling them for same price would help, if not as much.
    - i_d_rather_read 6y ago
      thanks to the magic of supply and demand millions starve
jshaqaw 6y ago
Who is the little guy here?
mapgrep 6y ago
> PopcornTime has never itself been guilty of copyright violation, Take a look at Fonovisa vs Cherry Auction, a landmark case in developing the concept of “contributory copyright infringement” and “vicarious infringement.” This was a key precedent in the case that effectively shut down Napster. Cherry Auction was a swap meet that was the site of the sale of counterfeit recordings (probably cassette tapes, it was early 90s) including counterfeits infringing on copyrights held by Fonovisa Inc. It was established that the swap meet knew that alleged piracy was going on; among other things there had been a massive police raid after which such sales continued. The swap meet’s position was essentially what you are saying — I don’t do any infringement, not my problem. A district court agreed but was overturned on appeal, with the appeals court reasoning, to oversimplify, that the swap meet routinely patrolled vendors, gated admission by consumers, and reaped financial benefit in the form of rent — essentially it had the knowledge and power to stop the infringement, and profited by failing to do so, therefore it was a party to the infringement. I don’t explain any of this to say the takedown here is necessarily right, just to give some context. And admittedly context only applicable to the app’s US legality. Namely, it’s not enough for PopcornTime to not itself infringe, under the law as now understood. (IANAL, btw! Just followed some cases.) It needs to be in a position where it is not materially contributing to the infringement — knowingly and directly. I believe vicarious infringement has a financial benefit prong (which popcorn time as a volunteer effort may lack) but that contributory infringement does not. At least based on the wording in Fonovisa which is almost 25 years old https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Fonovisa-v.-Cherry-Auction.pdf https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Fon... In the Napster case, Napster’s control of the central search index proved key in establishing it enabled and knew about infringement. The particulars of how popcorntime works are presumably important in establish whether it is knowingly and directly enabling infringement. And liability for github if any is going to be murkier — they are some hops out here from the infringement of (some) popcorntime users.
- ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  What I find very interesting specifically with the case you describe here is that this is directly opposite to Section 230. Where tech companies have terms and moderation and rules on what people can do on their platforms which they enforce as they see fit for profit purposes... but then turn around and claim immunity for responsibility for any illegal actions that take place within those platforms.

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.

ddevault 6y ago
Wrong. Telling people how to find people who will share copyrighted content isn't copyright infringement. Sharing copyrighted content is copyright infringement. It's a rather obvious difference. In either case, I side against the copyright owner.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Unfortunately the law does not see it that way. Your or my insistence that this is ridiculous doesn’t change the fact that this probably isn’t abuse of the DMCA.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. In the case of PopcornTime, this is an abuse of the DMCA, plain and square. I'm also pointing out that in clear-cut cases of the DMCA, I think the law is wrong, and I side with the defendant, in spite of the law. The law is not the arbiter of my personal code of ethics.
    - saagarjha 6y ago
      The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. In the case of PopcornTime, this is an abuse of the DMCA, plain and square. > The law agrees with me in former case, and disagrees with me in the latter. and less about this: > I'm also pointing out that in clear-cut cases of the DMCA, I think the law is wrong, and I side with the defendant, in spite of the law. The law is not the arbiter of my personal code of ethics. I suspect we have similar opinions of the DMCA, but would very much prefer if we didn't conflate "I dislike the DMCA" with "I think this is an abuse of the DMCA (specifically: regardless of my opinion on the DMCA, I think this is an overreach)". It's like if we were discussing whether a person sentenced to death is guilty or not, and you came in and said, "I can't possibly see why we could side against the victim, I don't like them, the death penalty is stupid". All of which might even be an opinion shared by the people discussing it, but not only are you off topic but you're doing your argument a disservice as you're tying it to something that's not what you are arguing. (I'm being a stickler on this, because like I said, I likely agree with your viewpoint and would very much rather you not allow people to come up with lazy responses to you.)

briandear 6y ago

The little guy can get a Netflix or Hulu subscription. It isn’t like someone has locked away a Van Gogh painting and has ordered all prints destroyed. Don’t like Hulu or Netflix? Start your own company and negotiate your own deals with the content owners.

ddevault 6y ago
No. That implies that I have any respect for content owners or any willingness to play by their rules - and I don't, and I won't. >It isn’t like someone has locked away a Van Gogh painting It is exactly like this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney_Vault

ocdtrekkie 6y ago

I think big pharma companies are corrupt and charge too much, but I wouldn't rob a drug store because of it. Similarly, just because copyright terms are horrifically overextended doesn't mean I think it's okay to steal movies.

ddevault 6y ago
Robbing drug stores is different. You're hurting someone who isn't at fault - your local pharmacist - and stealing something of material value. Now, if you want to talk about synthesising "copyrighted" drugs and giving them away, or even selling them for a fraction of the price, I'm with you 100%.
- a1369209993 6y ago
  > synthesising "copyrighted" drugs Patented; it's called "patented". And thanks to the magic of supply and demand, even selling them for same price would help, if not as much.
  - i_d_rather_read 6y ago
    thanks to the magic of supply and demand millions starve

jshaqaw 6y ago

Who is the little guy here?

mapgrep 6y ago

> PopcornTime has never itself been guilty of copyright violation, Take a look at Fonovisa vs Cherry Auction, a landmark case in developing the concept of “contributory copyright infringement” and “vicarious infringement.” This was a key precedent in the case that effectively shut down Napster. Cherry Auction was a swap meet that was the site of the sale of counterfeit recordings (probably cassette tapes, it was early 90s) including counterfeits infringing on copyrights held by Fonovisa Inc. It was established that the swap meet knew that alleged piracy was going on; among other things there had been a massive police raid after which such sales continued. The swap meet’s position was essentially what you are saying — I don’t do any infringement, not my problem. A district court agreed but was overturned on appeal, with the appeals court reasoning, to oversimplify, that the swap meet routinely patrolled vendors, gated admission by consumers, and reaped financial benefit in the form of rent — essentially it had the knowledge and power to stop the infringement, and profited by failing to do so, therefore it was a party to the infringement. I don’t explain any of this to say the takedown here is necessarily right, just to give some context. And admittedly context only applicable to the app’s US legality. Namely, it’s not enough for PopcornTime to not itself infringe, under the law as now understood. (IANAL, btw! Just followed some cases.) It needs to be in a position where it is not materially contributing to the infringement — knowingly and directly. I believe vicarious infringement has a financial benefit prong (which popcorn time as a volunteer effort may lack) but that contributory infringement does not. At least based on the wording in Fonovisa which is almost 25 years old https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Fonovisa-v.-Cherry-Auction.pdf https://copyrightalliance.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Fon... In the Napster case, Napster’s control of the central search index proved key in establishing it enabled and knew about infringement. The particulars of how popcorntime works are presumably important in establish whether it is knowingly and directly enabling infringement. And liability for github if any is going to be murkier — they are some hops out here from the infringement of (some) popcorntime users.

ocdtrekkie 6y ago
What I find very interesting specifically with the case you describe here is that this is directly opposite to Section 230. Where tech companies have terms and moderation and rules on what people can do on their platforms which they enforce as they see fit for profit purposes... but then turn around and claim immunity for responsibility for any illegal actions that take place within those platforms.