5 ms·

I'm not so sure about it being DMCA abuse. You're likely to be convicted of murder if your wife ends up dead and you recently published something that said, "I

by parsimo2010 6y ago

I'm not so sure about it being DMCA abuse. You're likely to be convicted of murder if your wife ends up dead and you recently published something that said, "I'm not paying anyone to murder my wife, but if my wife ends up dead, I'll bet someone will randomly find $10k in a duffel bag." Judges and juries are people, not robots, and they can read between the lines. Talking around a crime by saying stuff like, "I'm not a pirate, I only published detailed instructions and make it really easy for other people to be a pirate" is not going to hold up in court. It's pretty clear that even if PopCornTime wasn't committing crimes themselves, they bore some responsibility by enabling other people to commit crimes. The discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal is a separate discussion, for now it is illegal and PopCornTime's number finally came up. They the aren't the first piracy enabling tool (UseNet, Napster, BitTorrent, etc.) and they won't be the last. But it is true that the systems that survive are decentralized. PopCornTime was/is pretty decentralized overall, they just took a hit at one of their centralized points. I'm sure there will be several new repositories that appear in other places around the web very soon.

ObsoleteNerd 6y ago
Yeah but this didn’t go through a court to decide whether they contributed to piracy happening, this was a DMCA takedown which is supposed to target a specific case of piracy itself. The DMCA is about “you pirated THIS” not “you are involved in pirating stuff”. So yes, this is an abuse of the DMCA, but also yes, PopCornTime contributes to piracy.
wpietri 6y ago
Publishing details on how to commit crime is definitely not illegal, so your analogy doesn't hold up here. Also, you can't simultaneously claim that they "bore some responsibility" and then try to put off "discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal". Claiming they have moral responsibility is opening a discussion about what's right and wrong, which is at the heart of any serious notion about what should be illegal.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  I absolutely can make a statement that as things stand now, something is illegal, while also mentioning that there may be value in discussing whether it should be legal or not. Here's another one: According to federal law (of the USA), recreational marijuana use is illegal. So anyone that smokes weed for fun (in the USA) is breaking the law, and that's a fact. But there is a separate discussion that we should have about whether we should legalize recreational marijuana use. I didn't take a position on the issue, but I do support at least having the discussion. I also did not claim that PopCornTime has a moral responsibility, I said that using clever phrasing doesn't make something illegal into something legal.
  - wpietri 6y ago
    It sounded like a moral argument to me, but I'll take your word for it that you're making a factual claim about the law. What law exactly says that they "they bore some responsibility" for other people's copyright violation? As an example, the federal murder-for-hire law is what specifically establishes legal culpability for your not-quite-analogous example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958
smsm42 6y ago
Analogies rarely work in law. Just because you can construe some imaginary scenario about murder doesn't mean law actually works this way. DMCA notice is to notify hoster about copyright infringement. Not about any illegal activity whatsoever, but specifically about infringing somebody's copyright on specific works. The content of that repo didn't infringe anybody's copyright, therefore whoever submitted that notice is a liar and possibly a perjurer.
- michaelmrose 6y ago
  Maybe if just one lawyer lost their license to practice law for commission of a crime people would hesitate to submit fraudulent notices.
- parsimo2010 6y ago
  If you read the notice, you'll see that absolutely nowhere did they claim that they owned the copyright to the code. They claimed that the code was being used to infringe on copyrighted works. There are no lies in the notice and no perjury. Nearly everything the notice is factual. The only claim that needs a little support is the claim that PopCornTime's predominant purpose and use is for copyright infringement, but that would take about five minutes to convince a reasonable person.
  - loeg 6y ago
    Submitting a DMCA takedown notice without claiming copyright is an abuse of the good will of the recipient (Github) and an abuse of the DMCA takedown system. Even if it is not perjury, it should be condemned and rampant abuse should expose parties like MPA to litigation.
  - huffmsa 6y ago
    So what are they claiming to own the copyright to in that repo?
michaelmrose 6y ago
As it happens there is no such thing as a DMCA notice for contributory copyright infringement its a straightforward fraudulent claim to own the resource named. If they can find anyone to sue locally they might win but they can't just make it up as they go along.
httpsterio 6y ago
It's not illegal to build knives. It's not illegal to sell knives either. Using a knife to stab someone on the other hand is. No sane jusge could claim that the knife-builder was in fact involved in the killing, nor should popcorntime face any reprecussions for developing a program. DMCA claims aren't even related to morality and the issues are always black and white. Either the plaintiff has copyright over the items they claim or they don't and it belongs to someone else or no one. In this case they cannot in any way claim that they have ownership of the code or product unless the popcorntime project has a signed dislaimer all devs agree to handing over the rights to the code to someone else (not likely). So, simply DMCA abuse.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > It's not illegal to build knives. It's not illegal to sell knives either. Using a knife to stab someone on the other hand is. No sane jusge could claim that the knife-builder was in fact involved in the killing, nor should popcorntime face any reprecussions for developing a program. Popcorn Time is ostensibly built to access and watch copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. No-one is pretending they’re using it only to watch Big Buck Bunny. It isn’t like a general-purpose BitTorrent client either because those generally don’t market themselves as tools for copyright infringement and torrents are widely used legitimately for free-software distribution. You’d have a point if it was uncalled “Popcorn-and-Slackware Time” - but it isn’t. Disregarding the inevitable 2A analogy (“knife” -> “gun”), the concept of dual-use is recognised by legal precedent: the maker of a knife intends for it to be used in culinary or outdoors survival scenarios. If I sold my own line of knives with a TV and billboard campaign emphasising about how my knives are specifically designed to shank people with - and someone inevitably does get shanked by one of my knives I fully expect to be at the receiving-end of at least a civil liability suit - but most likely some criminal charges for recklessness. I recognise that Popcorn Time itself isn’t violating copyright and so cannot be the subject of a DMCA takedown notice, Popcorn Time might be viewed as falling under the DMCA’s Anti-circumvention clauses or something similar. And if the courts somehow find it to be completely in the clear, I guarantee that within a few years the MPAA will get a new copyright law on the books that specifically considers the intent of the creator or distributor of a tool involved in copyright infringement.

ObsoleteNerd 6y ago

Yeah but this didn’t go through a court to decide whether they contributed to piracy happening, this was a DMCA takedown which is supposed to target a specific case of piracy itself. The DMCA is about “you pirated THIS” not “you are involved in pirating stuff”. So yes, this is an abuse of the DMCA, but also yes, PopCornTime contributes to piracy.

wpietri 6y ago

Publishing details on how to commit crime is definitely not illegal, so your analogy doesn't hold up here. Also, you can't simultaneously claim that they "bore some responsibility" and then try to put off "discussion about whether digital piracy should be illegal". Claiming they have moral responsibility is opening a discussion about what's right and wrong, which is at the heart of any serious notion about what should be illegal.

parsimo2010 6y ago
I absolutely can make a statement that as things stand now, something is illegal, while also mentioning that there may be value in discussing whether it should be legal or not. Here's another one: According to federal law (of the USA), recreational marijuana use is illegal. So anyone that smokes weed for fun (in the USA) is breaking the law, and that's a fact. But there is a separate discussion that we should have about whether we should legalize recreational marijuana use. I didn't take a position on the issue, but I do support at least having the discussion. I also did not claim that PopCornTime has a moral responsibility, I said that using clever phrasing doesn't make something illegal into something legal.
- wpietri 6y ago
  It sounded like a moral argument to me, but I'll take your word for it that you're making a factual claim about the law. What law exactly says that they "they bore some responsibility" for other people's copyright violation? As an example, the federal murder-for-hire law is what specifically establishes legal culpability for your not-quite-analogous example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1958

smsm42 6y ago

Analogies rarely work in law. Just because you can construe some imaginary scenario about murder doesn't mean law actually works this way. DMCA notice is to notify hoster about copyright infringement. Not about any illegal activity whatsoever, but specifically about infringing somebody's copyright on specific works. The content of that repo didn't infringe anybody's copyright, therefore whoever submitted that notice is a liar and possibly a perjurer.

michaelmrose 6y ago
Maybe if just one lawyer lost their license to practice law for commission of a crime people would hesitate to submit fraudulent notices.
parsimo2010 6y ago
If you read the notice, you'll see that absolutely nowhere did they claim that they owned the copyright to the code. They claimed that the code was being used to infringe on copyrighted works. There are no lies in the notice and no perjury. Nearly everything the notice is factual. The only claim that needs a little support is the claim that PopCornTime's predominant purpose and use is for copyright infringement, but that would take about five minutes to convince a reasonable person.
- loeg 6y ago
  Submitting a DMCA takedown notice without claiming copyright is an abuse of the good will of the recipient (Github) and an abuse of the DMCA takedown system. Even if it is not perjury, it should be condemned and rampant abuse should expose parties like MPA to litigation.
- huffmsa 6y ago
  So what are they claiming to own the copyright to in that repo?

michaelmrose 6y ago

As it happens there is no such thing as a DMCA notice for contributory copyright infringement its a straightforward fraudulent claim to own the resource named. If they can find anyone to sue locally they might win but they can't just make it up as they go along.

httpsterio 6y ago

It's not illegal to build knives. It's not illegal to sell knives either. Using a knife to stab someone on the other hand is. No sane jusge could claim that the knife-builder was in fact involved in the killing, nor should popcorntime face any reprecussions for developing a program. DMCA claims aren't even related to morality and the issues are always black and white. Either the plaintiff has copyright over the items they claim or they don't and it belongs to someone else or no one. In this case they cannot in any way claim that they have ownership of the code or product unless the popcorntime project has a signed dislaimer all devs agree to handing over the rights to the code to someone else (not likely). So, simply DMCA abuse.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> It's not illegal to build knives. It's not illegal to sell knives either. Using a knife to stab someone on the other hand is. No sane jusge could claim that the knife-builder was in fact involved in the killing, nor should popcorntime face any reprecussions for developing a program. Popcorn Time is ostensibly built to access and watch copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. No-one is pretending they’re using it only to watch Big Buck Bunny. It isn’t like a general-purpose BitTorrent client either because those generally don’t market themselves as tools for copyright infringement and torrents are widely used legitimately for free-software distribution. You’d have a point if it was uncalled “Popcorn-and-Slackware Time” - but it isn’t. Disregarding the inevitable 2A analogy (“knife” -> “gun”), the concept of dual-use is recognised by legal precedent: the maker of a knife intends for it to be used in culinary or outdoors survival scenarios. If I sold my own line of knives with a TV and billboard campaign emphasising about how my knives are specifically designed to shank people with - and someone inevitably does get shanked by one of my knives I fully expect to be at the receiving-end of at least a civil liability suit - but most likely some criminal charges for recklessness. I recognise that Popcorn Time itself isn’t violating copyright and so cannot be the subject of a DMCA takedown notice, Popcorn Time might be viewed as falling under the DMCA’s Anti-circumvention clauses or something similar. And if the courts somehow find it to be completely in the clear, I guarantee that within a few years the MPAA will get a new copyright law on the books that specifically considers the intent of the creator or distributor of a tool involved in copyright infringement.