5 ms·

> You can only take down popcorn time if you can claim to own it thus its just the kind of crime we allow rich people to perpetrate upon poor people. In the US

> You can only take down popcorn time if you can claim to own it thus its just the kind of crime we allow rich people to perpetrate upon poor people. In the US, the DMCA makes a criminal offense to circumvent access control. As with many matters, the law isn't necessarily black and white (coincidentally, today was the first time the SCOTUS heard a arguments via teleconference--that audio was streamed live, and the subject was whether or not the PTO could block a trademark on Booking.com), and it would be up to challenge in court. I suspect that whether an open source repository that allows anyone with technical know-how to build software to partake in copyright infringement--is subject to DMCA, would be a matter for the courts to decide. I could see one argument--plans to create a 3d printed gun are controlled, and a federal court has ruled those plans cannot be put online.

duskwuff 7y ago
> In the US, the DMCA makes a criminal offense to circumvent access control. Correct. However: 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Part of a properly formed takedown request is an affadavit that the content infringes upon the requester's copyright; the request in the OP is technically deficient, and GitHub made an error by honoring it. 2) PopcornTime is not a circumvention tool. It does not itself bypass any forms of rights protection; it merely distributes content (which might have been obtained through the use of circumvention tools, but that's besides the point).
- balls187 7y ago
  > 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Not according to this: Moreover, the Project in question hosts software that is distributed and used to infringe on the MPA Member Studios’ copyrights. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 940 n.13 (2005) (“the distribution of a product can itself give rise to liability where evidence shows that the distributor intended and encouraged the product to be used to infringe”). Hence, my point that it's an argument for the courts.
  - zaroth 7y ago
    I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. There is perhaps no argument that PopcornTime is committing contributory copyright infringement. The point is you can’t use DMCA Takedown Notices on the source code of a contributory tool. The form that must be completed as part of a takedown notice does not have a box for “this is a tool which contributes to infringing my copyright”. The box you must check is “this is my copyrighted work and I don’t want it posted at this address”.
    - naikrovek 7y ago
      > I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. I'm 100% sure that you are guessing, and that the post you replied to is directly quoting the takedown notice. See: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0...
      - resfirestar 7y ago
        This seems irrelevant as the person you are replying to is claiming that the notice is by its nature invalid. Quoting the notice they claim is invalid does nothing to prove them wrong. Addressing the content of the quote more directly, Grokster established that companies marketing file sharing applications have liability for infringement conducted by users. It did not establish that the companies' service providers can be sent DMCA notices, as that wasn't at issue. So that particular case doesn't help your point.
        bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        I think the problem here is that the people arguing have two opposing philosophies of the law - the first is arguing the letter of the law makes the law, and that as this situation does not conform to the letter then the notice is invalid. the second is arguing that, in the American system, it is actually the interpretation that makes the law, hence it will have to be determined by the courts whether the notice is actually invalid. This second argument implies some things: Until such a time as the notice can be voided it is valid, because a valid notice is one that can shut something down as this one has done. There is no such thing as invalidity without court interpretation if you can send a notice and have it always treated as valid until the interpretation is made. The notice is in force, and there is nothing more valid than force in the American system. Perhaps in any real world system. I might like to live in a world in which argument number 1 was correct, but I'm pretty sure I live in a world which argument number two more closely models. I also think the courts will in the end interpret #2 as correct, for the reasons that #1 outlined, that the sending of the notice is a crime that the rich are allowed to commit on the poor. I think in the end both posters and myself share an equal cynicism about American Law, but display our cynicism in different ways.

duskwuff 7y ago

> In the US, the DMCA makes a criminal offense to circumvent access control. Correct. However: 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Part of a properly formed takedown request is an affadavit that the content infringes upon the requester's copyright; the request in the OP is technically deficient, and GitHub made an error by honoring it. 2) PopcornTime is not a circumvention tool. It does not itself bypass any forms of rights protection; it merely distributes content (which might have been obtained through the use of circumvention tools, but that's besides the point).

balls187 7y ago
> 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Not according to this: Moreover, the Project in question hosts software that is distributed and used to infringe on the MPA Member Studios’ copyrights. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 940 n.13 (2005) (“the distribution of a product can itself give rise to liability where evidence shows that the distributor intended and encouraged the product to be used to infringe”). Hence, my point that it's an argument for the courts.
- zaroth 7y ago
  I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. There is perhaps no argument that PopcornTime is committing contributory copyright infringement. The point is you can’t use DMCA Takedown Notices on the source code of a contributory tool. The form that must be completed as part of a takedown notice does not have a box for “this is a tool which contributes to infringing my copyright”. The box you must check is “this is my copyrighted work and I don’t want it posted at this address”.
  - naikrovek 7y ago
    > I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. I'm 100% sure that you are guessing, and that the post you replied to is directly quoting the takedown notice. See: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0...
    - resfirestar 7y ago
      This seems irrelevant as the person you are replying to is claiming that the notice is by its nature invalid. Quoting the notice they claim is invalid does nothing to prove them wrong. Addressing the content of the quote more directly, Grokster established that companies marketing file sharing applications have liability for infringement conducted by users. It did not establish that the companies' service providers can be sent DMCA notices, as that wasn't at issue. So that particular case doesn't help your point.
      - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
        I think the problem here is that the people arguing have two opposing philosophies of the law - the first is arguing the letter of the law makes the law, and that as this situation does not conform to the letter then the notice is invalid. the second is arguing that, in the American system, it is actually the interpretation that makes the law, hence it will have to be determined by the courts whether the notice is actually invalid. This second argument implies some things: Until such a time as the notice can be voided it is valid, because a valid notice is one that can shut something down as this one has done. There is no such thing as invalidity without court interpretation if you can send a notice and have it always treated as valid until the interpretation is made. The notice is in force, and there is nothing more valid than force in the American system. Perhaps in any real world system. I might like to live in a world in which argument number 1 was correct, but I'm pretty sure I live in a world which argument number two more closely models. I also think the courts will in the end interpret #2 as correct, for the reasons that #1 outlined, that the sending of the notice is a crime that the rich are allowed to commit on the poor. I think in the end both posters and myself share an equal cynicism about American Law, but display our cynicism in different ways.