5 ms·

No, the MPAA is going to sue them now. To file a counter notice, they must have a "good faith" reason for their dispute. The MPAA's claim is that Popcorn is u

by ben509 6y ago

No, the MPAA is going to sue them now. To file a counter notice, they must have a "good faith" reason for their dispute. The MPAA's claim is that Popcorn is used for piracy. IANAL and don't know the case law, so I don't know if it has merit. But a "good faith" dispute has to address the claim. Their dispute is arguing that they own the code. The MPAA never claimed they don't, that's simply not responding to the substance of their argument. They should really get an attorney. FFS, at least read the counter notice guidelines; I think they believe they're dealing with Github customer support.

gpm 6y ago
They have a good faith reason for the counter notice, DMCA notices don't cover contributory copyright infringement. The MPAA committed perjury by submitting this notice. The MPAA still might still sue them though, DMCA notices don't cover it but copyright law does. IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah,
loeg 6y ago
You're confusing the broader DMCA law and DMCA copyright violation takedown notices specifically. The DMCA copyright takedown notice is to assert to a common provider (Github) that your copyrighted work is currently copied on their platform (Github). As a result, the platform is obliged to immediately assume guilt on the part of their user and take down the content, regardless of evidence. There was no MPA-owned copyrighted material in the repository the DMCA takedown notice was invoked on. The popcorn developers own the copyright to their code, and no MPA media assets are in the Github repository. The MPA has no copyright claim against the source code on Github. The MPA could sue the developers for any reason they like, but that is a very different process from DMCA takedown notices. This was an abuse of the DMCA takedown process and the counternotice is wholly correct.
- ben509 6y ago
  I'm not confusing it, perhaps MPAA is. And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law. But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.
  - loeg 6y ago
    > And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law. Popcorn did make that point. It's obvious English is not the author's primary language, but can be understood to be making that claim: > The code is 100 % ours and do[es] not contain any [MPA-owned] copyright material[,] please check again[.] That's a good-faith counter notice and disputes the legal basis for the takedown. > But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say. What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? (Nevermind that the original takedown from MPA was not in good faith.)
    - ben509 6y ago
      > Nevermind that the original takedown from MPAA was not in good faith. I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts should consider that. But I don't see a factual basis for that in their filing. The MPAA establishes legal precedent and harm done to them; they check all the boxes for what a complaint is supposed to be. Also, this doesn't fall into the patterns of verbose but invalid complaints, e.g. it clearly isn't some takedown they spammed at a random publisher. > What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? It's what I'm not reading that means I can't make the case that it is good faith. The complaint addresses one issue. All I can read in Popcorn's response is that they didn't do something else entirely. Your argument is simply not what they wrote, and the law requires one to be explicit, which is why legal brief is a contradiction in terms. Because it's not relevant to the complaint, it's as though they left it blank and hit submit.
mar77i 6y ago
The argument that BitTorrent had no legal applications is invalid. If people kill each other with guns, why would you put the blame on the gun company?
- ben509 6y ago
  Popcorn apparently, if the MPAA is correct about the source code we now can't read, specifically helps users pirate movies. To avoid cranking the discussion up to 11, let me recast your analogy to, "if people break into houses with crowbars, why would you blame the crowbar company?" I think under the MPAA's argument, Popcorn is like a crowbar sold with a GPS device that finds unoccupied houses to break into.

by ben509 6y ago

gpm 6y ago

They have a good faith reason for the counter notice, DMCA notices don't cover contributory copyright infringement. The MPAA committed perjury by submitting this notice. The MPAA still might still sue them though, DMCA notices don't cover it but copyright law does. IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah,

loeg 6y ago

You're confusing the broader DMCA law and DMCA copyright violation takedown notices specifically. The DMCA copyright takedown notice is to assert to a common provider (Github) that your copyrighted work is currently copied on their platform (Github). As a result, the platform is obliged to immediately assume guilt on the part of their user and take down the content, regardless of evidence. There was no MPA-owned copyrighted material in the repository the DMCA takedown notice was invoked on. The popcorn developers own the copyright to their code, and no MPA media assets are in the Github repository. The MPA has no copyright claim against the source code on Github. The MPA could sue the developers for any reason they like, but that is a very different process from DMCA takedown notices. This was an abuse of the DMCA takedown process and the counternotice is wholly correct.

ben509 6y ago
I'm not confusing it, perhaps MPAA is. And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law. But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.
- loeg 6y ago
  > And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law. Popcorn did make that point. It's obvious English is not the author's primary language, but can be understood to be making that claim: > The code is 100 % ours and do[es] not contain any [MPA-owned] copyright material[,] please check again[.] That's a good-faith counter notice and disputes the legal basis for the takedown. > But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say. What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? (Nevermind that the original takedown from MPA was not in good faith.)
  - ben509 6y ago
    > Nevermind that the original takedown from MPAA was not in good faith. I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts should consider that. But I don't see a factual basis for that in their filing. The MPAA establishes legal precedent and harm done to them; they check all the boxes for what a complaint is supposed to be. Also, this doesn't fall into the patterns of verbose but invalid complaints, e.g. it clearly isn't some takedown they spammed at a random publisher. > What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? It's what I'm not reading that means I can't make the case that it is good faith. The complaint addresses one issue. All I can read in Popcorn's response is that they didn't do something else entirely. Your argument is simply not what they wrote, and the law requires one to be explicit, which is why legal brief is a contradiction in terms. Because it's not relevant to the complaint, it's as though they left it blank and hit submit.

mar77i 6y ago

The argument that BitTorrent had no legal applications is invalid. If people kill each other with guns, why would you put the blame on the gun company?

ben509 6y ago
Popcorn apparently, if the MPAA is correct about the source code we now can't read, specifically helps users pirate movies. To avoid cranking the discussion up to 11, let me recast your analogy to, "if people break into houses with crowbars, why would you blame the crowbar company?" I think under the MPAA's argument, Popcorn is like a crowbar sold with a GPS device that finds unoccupied houses to break into.