6 ms·

Popcorn Time is _this_ close to being the Napster of Film, Hollywood must be literally shitting bricks. Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten t

Popcorn Time is _this_ close to being the Napster of Film, Hollywood must be literally shitting bricks. Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten these devs in a nasty (and perhaps illegal) way. Surely the story will come out eventually. In the meantime, Popcorn Time is fully available to download. So I'm not sure what genie they're putting back in the bottle....

girvo 13y ago
It's a curious state of affairs. I'd love to know how it all went down, as I've never seen things this weird even in the piracy world...
bryanlarsen 13y ago
The threat could be nothing more than suing for copyright violation. The fines for that are insanely high, and evidence of such is not necessarily hard to collect. After all, it's highly unlikely the devs were developing Popcorn Time without using it themselves.
- higherpurpose 13y ago
  I wonder if the way they threatened them is with such a lawsuit...unless they delete everything. But were all the devs (other than the original ones) from US? I don't think copyright fines are as huge in other places. Either way, whoever will be working next on it, it would be preferable if he was from Spain: http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-lose-big-as-court-declares-file-sharing-tools-legal-140410/ http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-lose-big-as-court-dec...
- cmiles74 13y ago
  Surely they download at least a bit of a movie to test. Setting up a mock service that pushes open source video might be a technical solution, but that might not matter once you're in front of a judge.
- wpietri 13y ago
  They wouldn't even have to use it themselves. If I understand rightly, "contributory copyright infringement"[1] is the stick they would get beaten with here. My hazy understanding is that if the Popcorn Time folks had wanted to get away with this, they shouldn't have said anything about Hollywood movies. They should have promoted it as a tool for watching all the great publicly-licensed documentaries and fan-made films out there on the torrent network. That would give them "substantial non-infringing use" [2]. And if somebody else published instructions on how to change the configs so you'd also get Hollywood's finest, well, that wouldn't be their fault. Oopsie! [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?Question... [2] http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Substantial_noninfringing_use http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Substantial_noninfringing_use
  - sspross 13y ago
    No I like that they pointed out how it should work and if the industry gives me something nearly usefull i'm the first who is paying monthly for it!
Touche 13y ago
> Popcorn Time is _this_ close to being the Napster of Film No it's not. The elephant in the room that no wants to talk about is that Popcorn Time doesn't work on a television. Television is where people watch movies. Back in the late 90s when Napster was a real mainstream thing, people didn't just listen to the music on their computers, they burnt them to CDs and took them to their cars, to parties, etc.
- evv 13y ago
  If I were a Hollywood exec right now I would be sweating bullets. Steam boxes will be hitting the shelves in the next couple of years and then there will be no stopping hackers from bringing the elegance of Popcorn Time to the comfort of the living room.
  - calinet6 13y ago
    If not this, then there will be something else. It won't be long before any digital content is simply available. It will eventually equilibrate into its natural state: a public good, non-rival and non-exclusive in consumption. Eventually, we'll pay for our bandwidth and content in one utility package, track usage in a legal and unlimited way, and divvy proceeds of our utility subscription to content creators based on popularity. A systematic solution is necessary, and the faster we're able to do it, the better.
  - genwin 13y ago
    Pretty sure I could buy a device today that streams wirelessly from my computer to the TV in the living room.
  - Touche 13y ago
    Again, you are underestimating how mainstream Napster was at it's heyday. Steam boxes are going to be a niche of a niche.
- calinet6 13y ago
  This is becoming less and less important. My TV is just a display for a Mac Mini, for example. If I had an AppleTV, I could just mirror the content straight to that. Before all this useful extravagance, I just hooked my computer up to my TV using (gasp) a cable. Worked great, and me and most other people I know, especially those younger than me, are fully used to making this work. Even then, my girlfriend could not care less about even having a TV. She watches everything on her computer and is perfectly happy.
whatevsbro 13y ago
> Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten these devs in a nasty (and perhaps illegal) way. Someone, you say? How about just stating the fucking obvious: That "someone" is The US Government, and this is just standard gag-order fare. "Stop developing the app, or we will fuck up your life. Oh, and don't say a word about this to anyone, or we'll fuck up your life." This insanity is obviously unconstitutional (for starters), but since the USG obviously doesn't give a fuck anyway, what with the all-encompassing surveillance and all, this has become just business as usual. Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qpcfZzx8xY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qp...
- jodrellblank 13y ago
  What video is that, "how to completely not understand the way a society works and that you are part of a society"? Edit: The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws". That's like not getting your children vaccinated - a benefit for you in the short term, assuming nothing everything else stays the same. All other people are vaccinated so there's nobody you can catch the disease from anyway. Most people pay taxes so there's no degradation in the local life, but you have more money and more choices. But if there were no taxes and no law for everyone, you wouldn't be able to do that. Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment. How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust? And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat? Who will take your money if they have no guarantee anyone else values it?
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws". I agree that telling people not to pay taxes is a bit silly when doing that will get you hauled to jail. But that brings us to the video's point: we should not have rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U > Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment. There's too much to unpack there. But having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no rules. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the so-called rule of law only applies to us little folks, not Wall Street banksters, for example. If you commit fraud, you go to jail. If a banker commits fraud, he will face no negative consequences. He'll just be collecting massive bonuses for wrecking the economy. As for the other stuff, if you build a shit airplane and it crashes, you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy more of your airplanes. No one is more motivated to make sure Boeing's aircrafts are safe than Boeing itself. The same applies to food. If your food products harm people, no one will want to buy them, and you won't get any money. But this only works all the way in a free market, where all exchanges are voluntary, and thus, everything is subject to competition. > How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust? This is a common sticking point, and I was stuck too. But then I realized that whenever someone wants to hurt you somewhere, a police officer will not materialize there to protect you. The government doesn't actually prevent any crimes, it only discourages (ordinary) people from committing them. The same kind of discouragement can be arranged without a government, and will work a lot better because it's based on voluntary co-operation, and therefore can't be bribed to look the other way. > And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat? Gold was happily used as a currency for ages, without anyone decreeing that it has value. Money just doesn't work that way. Gold was used exactly because everyone wanted it (ie. it had universal value), it was durable, divisible, and so on. Our fiat currencies only have value because governments force us to pay taxes in them. Otherwise no one would use such unreliable currencies.
goldenkey 13y ago
I don't see why Popcorn time doesn't offer legitimate ways to purchase the content. For an honest TV index with multiple streaming sources, check out http://episodeslist.com http://episodeslist.com It's updated daily.
- nnnnni 13y ago
  It's likely because Hollywood won't LET them "offer legitimate ways to purchase the content". There's a device that will allow normal people to watch new theater movies at home, but it's $500 per viewing after buying the highly-secured $35000 Prima video server. There are also a bunch of requirements that the company checks in person before allowing someone to buy into the service.
  - goldenkey 13y ago
    Fair enough. What about older movies that are available from Netflix or Amazon, iTunes, etc? Popcorn time could at least provide some links for purchasing the media.
    - Touche 13y ago
      What would be the point? You couldn't view them within Popcorn Time. Popcorn Time is not IMDB, it is for streaming movies to watch in the app.
- runeks 13y ago
  I don't watch a lot of films/TV series, so I would totally pay to watch a single TV episode/film. But I'm on Linux, and I don't know how to do that with iTunes, or if it's even possible. Hulu and Netflix require a subscription, which gets way too expensive because I don't watch a lot of stuff, and when trying to purchase an episode on Amazon I'm greeted with the following: > We could not process your order because of geographical restrictions on the product which you were attempting to purchase. Please refer to the terms of use for this product to determine the geographical restrictions. I simply can't find any site that lets me pay to download a movie/TV show episode, so I usually turn to Pirate Bay.

girvo 13y ago

It's a curious state of affairs. I'd love to know how it all went down, as I've never seen things this weird even in the piracy world...

bryanlarsen 13y ago

The threat could be nothing more than suing for copyright violation. The fines for that are insanely high, and evidence of such is not necessarily hard to collect. After all, it's highly unlikely the devs were developing Popcorn Time without using it themselves.

higherpurpose 13y ago
I wonder if the way they threatened them is with such a lawsuit...unless they delete everything. But were all the devs (other than the original ones) from US? I don't think copyright fines are as huge in other places. Either way, whoever will be working next on it, it would be preferable if he was from Spain: http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-lose-big-as-court-declares-file-sharing-tools-legal-140410/ http://torrentfreak.com/records-labels-lose-big-as-court-dec...
cmiles74 13y ago
Surely they download at least a bit of a movie to test. Setting up a mock service that pushes open source video might be a technical solution, but that might not matter once you're in front of a judge.
wpietri 13y ago
They wouldn't even have to use it themselves. If I understand rightly, "contributory copyright infringement"[1] is the stick they would get beaten with here. My hazy understanding is that if the Popcorn Time folks had wanted to get away with this, they shouldn't have said anything about Hollywood movies. They should have promoted it as a tool for watching all the great publicly-licensed documentaries and fan-made films out there on the torrent network. That would give them "substantial non-infringing use" [2]. And if somebody else published instructions on how to change the configs so you'd also get Hollywood's finest, well, that wouldn't be their fault. Oopsie! [1] http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?QuestionID=268 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/question.cgi?Question... [2] http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Substantial_noninfringing_use http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Substantial_noninfringing_use
- sspross 13y ago
  No I like that they pointed out how it should work and if the industry gives me something nearly usefull i'm the first who is paying monthly for it!

Touche 13y ago

> Popcorn Time is _this_ close to being the Napster of Film No it's not. The elephant in the room that no wants to talk about is that Popcorn Time doesn't work on a television. Television is where people watch movies. Back in the late 90s when Napster was a real mainstream thing, people didn't just listen to the music on their computers, they burnt them to CDs and took them to their cars, to parties, etc.

evv 13y ago
If I were a Hollywood exec right now I would be sweating bullets. Steam boxes will be hitting the shelves in the next couple of years and then there will be no stopping hackers from bringing the elegance of Popcorn Time to the comfort of the living room.
- calinet6 13y ago
  If not this, then there will be something else. It won't be long before any digital content is simply available. It will eventually equilibrate into its natural state: a public good, non-rival and non-exclusive in consumption. Eventually, we'll pay for our bandwidth and content in one utility package, track usage in a legal and unlimited way, and divvy proceeds of our utility subscription to content creators based on popularity. A systematic solution is necessary, and the faster we're able to do it, the better.
- genwin 13y ago
  Pretty sure I could buy a device today that streams wirelessly from my computer to the TV in the living room.
- Touche 13y ago
  Again, you are underestimating how mainstream Napster was at it's heyday. Steam boxes are going to be a niche of a niche.
calinet6 13y ago
This is becoming less and less important. My TV is just a display for a Mac Mini, for example. If I had an AppleTV, I could just mirror the content straight to that. Before all this useful extravagance, I just hooked my computer up to my TV using (gasp) a cable. Worked great, and me and most other people I know, especially those younger than me, are fully used to making this work. Even then, my girlfriend could not care less about even having a TV. She watches everything on her computer and is perfectly happy.

whatevsbro 13y ago

> Someone has probably taken it upon himself to threaten these devs in a nasty (and perhaps illegal) way. Someone, you say? How about just stating the fucking obvious: That "someone" is The US Government, and this is just standard gag-order fare. "Stop developing the app, or we will fuck up your life. Oh, and don't say a word about this to anyone, or we'll fuck up your life." This insanity is obviously unconstitutional (for starters), but since the USG obviously doesn't give a fuck anyway, what with the all-encompassing surveillance and all, this has become just business as usual. Relevant: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qpcfZzx8xY0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=qp...

jodrellblank 13y ago
What video is that, "how to completely not understand the way a society works and that you are part of a society"? Edit: The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws". That's like not getting your children vaccinated - a benefit for you in the short term, assuming nothing everything else stays the same. All other people are vaccinated so there's nobody you can catch the disease from anyway. Most people pay taxes so there's no degradation in the local life, but you have more money and more choices. But if there were no taxes and no law for everyone, you wouldn't be able to do that. Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment. How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust? And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat? Who will take your money if they have no guarantee anyone else values it?
- whatevsbro 13y ago
  > The video presenter says "don't pay taxes, don't follow laws". I agree that telling people not to pay taxes is a bit silly when doing that will get you hauled to jail. But that brings us to the video's point: we should not have rulers: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BNIgztvyU2U > Rule of law keeps buildings built to a safe standard, keeps food edible, keeps water drinkable, keeps airlines basically safe, keeps employers from abusing employees with low wages and no safety codes, keeps businesses from wrecking and polluting the local town/city environment. There's too much to unpack there. But having no ruleRs doesn't mean having no rules. Besides, in case you haven't noticed, the so-called rule of law only applies to us little folks, not Wall Street banksters, for example. If you commit fraud, you go to jail. If a banker commits fraud, he will face no negative consequences. He'll just be collecting massive bonuses for wrecking the economy. As for the other stuff, if you build a shit airplane and it crashes, you'll have a hard time convincing people to buy more of your airplanes. No one is more motivated to make sure Boeing's aircrafts are safe than Boeing itself. The same applies to food. If your food products harm people, no one will want to buy them, and you won't get any money. But this only works all the way in a free market, where all exchanges are voluntary, and thus, everything is subject to competition. > How much are you really going to be able to keep of your earnings if you have to personally guard it 24/7 because there's no police, no law, no way to stop someone stronger taking it without followup, and no banks you trust? This is a common sticking point, and I was stuck too. But then I realized that whenever someone wants to hurt you somewhere, a police officer will not materialize there to protect you. The government doesn't actually prevent any crimes, it only discourages (ordinary) people from committing them. The same kind of discouragement can be arranged without a government, and will work a lot better because it's based on voluntary co-operation, and therefore can't be bribed to look the other way. > And how much is that money going to be worth anyway if there's no government to say that it has value by fiat? Gold was happily used as a currency for ages, without anyone decreeing that it has value. Money just doesn't work that way. Gold was used exactly because everyone wanted it (ie. it had universal value), it was durable, divisible, and so on. Our fiat currencies only have value because governments force us to pay taxes in them. Otherwise no one would use such unreliable currencies.

goldenkey 13y ago

I don't see why Popcorn time doesn't offer legitimate ways to purchase the content. For an honest TV index with multiple streaming sources, check out http://episodeslist.com http://episodeslist.com It's updated daily.

nnnnni 13y ago
It's likely because Hollywood won't LET them "offer legitimate ways to purchase the content". There's a device that will allow normal people to watch new theater movies at home, but it's $500 per viewing after buying the highly-secured $35000 Prima video server. There are also a bunch of requirements that the company checks in person before allowing someone to buy into the service.
- goldenkey 13y ago
  Fair enough. What about older movies that are available from Netflix or Amazon, iTunes, etc? Popcorn time could at least provide some links for purchasing the media.
  - Touche 13y ago
    What would be the point? You couldn't view them within Popcorn Time. Popcorn Time is not IMDB, it is for streaming movies to watch in the app.
runeks 13y ago
I don't watch a lot of films/TV series, so I would totally pay to watch a single TV episode/film. But I'm on Linux, and I don't know how to do that with iTunes, or if it's even possible. Hulu and Netflix require a subscription, which gets way too expensive because I don't watch a lot of stuff, and when trying to purchase an episode on Amazon I'm greeted with the following: > We could not process your order because of geographical restrictions on the product which you were attempting to purchase. Please refer to the terms of use for this product to determine the geographical restrictions. I simply can't find any site that lets me pay to download a movie/TV show episode, so I usually turn to Pirate Bay.