4 ms·

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

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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.

ocdtrekkie 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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 6y 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.