5 ms·

Wrong. Telling people how to find people who will share copyrighted content isn't copyright infringement. Sharing copyrighted content is copyright infringement.

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.)
Wowfunhappy 6y ago
I don't have any drugs, but I can give you coordinates of where some are buried if you pay me. Am I a drug dealer?
- ddevault 6y ago
  In this hypothetical situation, you would personally be giving me the drugs, albiet indirectly. It's not much different from if you set them down on the table next to me. How about this: if you want to get some drugs in Philadelphia, I'll give you directions to Kensington. You hop on the Market-Frankford line, get off at the Kensington stop, and take a walk up Frankford Avenue. There are lots of dealers hanging around there who would be happy to get you your fix. Did I just commit a crime? I don't think so. Call the cops if you disagree, I'll stand in court for it.
  - Wowfunhappy 6y ago
    Hm, it would be a closer analogy to Popcorn Time if you made a autonomous vehicle which drives to Frankford Avenue, buys the drugs with a robotic arm, and then carries them back to the car's owner. I'll admit, I'm not actually sure where the law would fall in that situation, but I think the police would have a lot of questions for the car manufacturer, and I'd be on their side.
    - ddevault 6y ago
      So if you came into my shoestore, and you asked me for some good walking shoes, and where to find drugs - then you used those shoes to get there - have I committed a crime? How easy do I have to make it to commit crimes before I've made it too easy? The answer is it doesn't matter. There is no scenario in which I am legally at fault if you commit a crime with tools you got from me.
      - arcticbull 6y ago
        > There is no scenario in which I am legally at fault if you commit a crime with tools you got from me. If I serve you alcohol and then you drive drunk... "The majority of states consider bars and restaurants to be liable for injuries or fatalities caused by an intoxicated individual who's over-imbibed in their establishment." [1] [1] https://www.enjuris.com/car-accident/dram-shop-law.html https://www.enjuris.com/car-accident/dram-shop-law.html
maxlybbert 6y ago
After Napster and Grokster, US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. The courts say it isn’t necessarily infringement, but that it can be, and it requires talented judges to figure out which side of the law particular projects fall.
- wtallis 6y ago
  > US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. What the courts actually said is that enticing can get you secondary liability (contributory and/or vicarious). They maintain that there is a distinction between contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and direct infringement. The DMCA takedown procedure is only defined for direct infringement.
  - maxlybbert 6y ago
    My comment was to show that the argument “I’m not infringing copyright; I’m just giving directions and tools to do so, and telling them how much fun it is” doesn’t work in US law. From the Grokster summary ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ ): “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.”
    - wtallis 6y ago
      > doesn’t work in US law. It doesn't get you out of all trouble, but it does get you out of charges of direct infringement.
crankylinuxuser 6y ago
A better analogy is: "You run Erowid, which is a comprehensive reporting about all sorts of drugs, what they cause, their interactions, their prices, and all details. You don't sell drugs anywhere, and minimally comply with required statues." Is Erowid selling drugs?

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.)

Wowfunhappy 6y ago

I don't have any drugs, but I can give you coordinates of where some are buried if you pay me. Am I a drug dealer?

ddevault 6y ago
In this hypothetical situation, you would personally be giving me the drugs, albiet indirectly. It's not much different from if you set them down on the table next to me. How about this: if you want to get some drugs in Philadelphia, I'll give you directions to Kensington. You hop on the Market-Frankford line, get off at the Kensington stop, and take a walk up Frankford Avenue. There are lots of dealers hanging around there who would be happy to get you your fix. Did I just commit a crime? I don't think so. Call the cops if you disagree, I'll stand in court for it.
- Wowfunhappy 6y ago
  Hm, it would be a closer analogy to Popcorn Time if you made a autonomous vehicle which drives to Frankford Avenue, buys the drugs with a robotic arm, and then carries them back to the car's owner. I'll admit, I'm not actually sure where the law would fall in that situation, but I think the police would have a lot of questions for the car manufacturer, and I'd be on their side.
  - ddevault 6y ago
    So if you came into my shoestore, and you asked me for some good walking shoes, and where to find drugs - then you used those shoes to get there - have I committed a crime? How easy do I have to make it to commit crimes before I've made it too easy? The answer is it doesn't matter. There is no scenario in which I am legally at fault if you commit a crime with tools you got from me.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      > There is no scenario in which I am legally at fault if you commit a crime with tools you got from me. If I serve you alcohol and then you drive drunk... "The majority of states consider bars and restaurants to be liable for injuries or fatalities caused by an intoxicated individual who's over-imbibed in their establishment." [1] [1] https://www.enjuris.com/car-accident/dram-shop-law.html https://www.enjuris.com/car-accident/dram-shop-law.html

maxlybbert 6y ago

After Napster and Grokster, US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. The courts say it isn’t necessarily infringement, but that it can be, and it requires talented judges to figure out which side of the law particular projects fall.

wtallis 6y ago
> US courts say that enticing people to infringe copyrights can be a form of copyright infringement. What the courts actually said is that enticing can get you secondary liability (contributory and/or vicarious). They maintain that there is a distinction between contributory infringement, vicarious infringement, and direct infringement. The DMCA takedown procedure is only defined for direct infringement.
- maxlybbert 6y ago
  My comment was to show that the argument “I’m not infringing copyright; I’m just giving directions and tools to do so, and telling them how much fun it is” doesn’t work in US law. From the Grokster summary ( https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/545/913/ ): “One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses.”
  - wtallis 6y ago
    > doesn’t work in US law. It doesn't get you out of all trouble, but it does get you out of charges of direct infringement.

crankylinuxuser 6y ago

A better analogy is: "You run Erowid, which is a comprehensive reporting about all sorts of drugs, what they cause, their interactions, their prices, and all details. You don't sell drugs anywhere, and minimally comply with required statues." Is Erowid selling drugs?