5 ms·

Editorialized title. I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy.

by ghughes 12y ago

ekianjo 12y ago
> which exists solely to facilitate piracy. Let's not use the words the big majors wants people to use. The right wording is copyright infringement and that's it.
- 13hours 12y ago
  Piracy is a well known synonym for copyright infringement. I would agree with you that something like "theft" would not be a good term to use, but Piracy is spot-on.
  - DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
    "Piracy" is a term used specifically to attach the implication of theft to copyright infringement, because actual pirates steal things. The root of calling it "piracy" is no better than calling it "theft", even if it has become common to refer to it as such. It's completely reasonable to make an appeal to talk about it accurately.
  - Already__Taken 12y ago
    Piracy still exists and kills people. Using that word for downloading a movie just seems wrong.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Nope, Piracy can be used to mean a lot of things, including stealing physical goods IRL. It's certainly not the right expression to use if you ONLY mean copyright infringement.
  - rmc 12y ago
    And people who do copyright infringment have adopted the label. Just look at the Pirate Party and The Pirate Bay.
- tzs 12y ago
  If you are a plaintiff writing a complaint, an interested party writing an amicus brief, a legal scholar writing a law review article, and so on, then indeed the right wording is copyright infringement and arguably "that's it". If you are speaking outside of a formal legal context, than it most certainly is not the case that "that's it". In ordinary English, we overload and generalize many criminal terms, such as "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" to apply to things that do not meet the precise legal definition of those words. For example, consider "steal" and its variants. Here are some common examples of usage that are not literally the crime of stealing. Many are not even crimes or torts. • Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. • An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a performance that outshines the performance of the stars. Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. • An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. • When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is commonly said that the data was "stolen". • Alice is Bob's fiancé. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiancé. • A team that has been behind since the start of the game but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to have "stolen" the game. I could go on [1]. [1] I believe I once posted a longer list, but HN crashed shortly afterward and had to be restored from backup. My post was lost.
  - habitue 12y ago
    He's making a point to raise awareness of a propaganda term that's made it into the common lexicon, and saying its use should be discontinued when discussing copyright infringement. He's expressing a prescriptive statement, and you're replying with a descriptive statement.
Springtime 12y ago
> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. I did find this amusing. The irony is strong with this one, although they have some valid points expanded on in the Reddit post linked. Comment from a contributor on the time4popcorn repo: I am also waiting for a reply. You guys just copy other people's work and don't even give them proper credits... if you decide to start coding I could put you back in. Not if you keep stealing though.
- kluivers 12y ago
  Question is: what license is that work released under (GPL3?) and does that license require attribution?
  - mkesper 12y ago
    Almost all licenses require attribution, at least at the file level.
    - rmc 12y ago
      Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
      - nitrogen 12y ago
        The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.
        dragonwriter 12y ago
        > You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it. There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).
bryan_rasmussen 12y ago
They made something to facilitate piracy, most probably piracy not done for profit, but did not pirate something and then put it out as their own with the intention to make a profit.
- peterhajas 12y ago
  They're making an enabling technology which can solely be used for stealing. Seems like piracy to me.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    It might be piracy, but it's definitively not stealing. The SCOTUS itself explained why.
ekianjo 12y ago
> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. You missed their point. They are angry about the ripoff because they include malware in it and try to pass for the real thing. Popcorn time does not pretend to be Metflix or something in terms of branding, so what's where your analogy ends
dspillett 12y ago
I once, in a previous incarnation as a naughty law-breaking youngster, frequented a torrent tracker that specialised in games. You should have seen the vitriol thrown around if someone dare copy someone else's copy/keygen/what-ever without giving appropriate credit... I was thrown off the site for pointing out how amusing the hypocrisy was.
- hnarn 12y ago
  Maybe you were thrown off because you failed to see the difference between simply copying copyrighted content without permission (filesharing), and copying something and claiming that you in fact created it yourself, explicitly (I made this!) or implicitly, by not attributing the original author (plagiarism).
  - dspillett 12y ago
    There is no difference. The content producer worked on the content and wants what they want in exchange for it (indirectly for the effort): money. The ripper worked on ripping the content and wants what they want for it (indirectly for the effort): recognition. One of the usual complains was their "internal rips" being posted elsewhere even when posted without any attribution being removed (or at least with no claim of creator-ship added). There were "rippers" who tried to take credit for the efforts of others, but re-distributing outside the group was the main complaint (either with "correct" attribution or with no attribution at all). I was thrown off because I refused to apologise for not seeing the difference between one person taking the attitude "great, I'll take this and do what-ever I want to do with it under my own terms and not your's because I can and fuck you if you don't like it" and a second person also taking the attitude "great, I'll take this and do what-ever I want to do with it under my own terms and not your's because I can and fuck you if you don't like it".
    - habitue 12y ago
      There is a difference. When movies are copied, nobody takes the credits out and adds their name into them. We're talking about attribution vs. copyright. They're completely separate issues, and it trips people up every time something like this gets posted.

Editorialized title. I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy.

by ghughes 12y ago

Editorialized title. I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy.

ekianjo 12y ago

> which exists solely to facilitate piracy. Let's not use the words the big majors wants people to use. The right wording is copyright infringement and that's it.

13hours 12y ago
Piracy is a well known synonym for copyright infringement. I would agree with you that something like "theft" would not be a good term to use, but Piracy is spot-on.
- DerpDerpDerp 12y ago
  "Piracy" is a term used specifically to attach the implication of theft to copyright infringement, because actual pirates steal things. The root of calling it "piracy" is no better than calling it "theft", even if it has become common to refer to it as such. It's completely reasonable to make an appeal to talk about it accurately.
- Already__Taken 12y ago
  Piracy still exists and kills people. Using that word for downloading a movie just seems wrong.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Nope, Piracy can be used to mean a lot of things, including stealing physical goods IRL. It's certainly not the right expression to use if you ONLY mean copyright infringement.
- rmc 12y ago
  And people who do copyright infringment have adopted the label. Just look at the Pirate Party and The Pirate Bay.
tzs 12y ago
If you are a plaintiff writing a complaint, an interested party writing an amicus brief, a legal scholar writing a law review article, and so on, then indeed the right wording is copyright infringement and arguably "that's it". If you are speaking outside of a formal legal context, than it most certainly is not the case that "that's it". In ordinary English, we overload and generalize many criminal terms, such as "piracy", "theft", and "stealing" to apply to things that do not meet the precise legal definition of those words. For example, consider "steal" and its variants. Here are some common examples of usage that are not literally the crime of stealing. Many are not even crimes or torts. • Someone says they do not like cats and have no interest in having one as a pet. A cute stray kitten shows up on their doorstep, they take pity and feed it. They fall in love with it and keep it. They might say that the kitten "stole" their heart. • An actor playing a minor role in a play gives a performance that outshines the performance of the stars. Many would say that the actor "stole" the show. • An employee of a rival company poses as a janitor to gain access to your lab and takes a photo of a whiteboard containing the formula for a chemical that is a trade secret in your manufacturing process. It would be common to say that the rival company "stole" your secret formula. • When crackers gain access to a company's list of customer email addresses, passwords, or credit card numbers, it is commonly said that the data was "stolen". • Alice is Bob's fiancé. Mallory woos Alice without Bob's knowledge. Alice elopes with Mallory. Most would find it acceptable if Bob said that Mallory "stole" his fiancé. • A team that has been behind since the start of the game but wins on a last second improbable play is often said to have "stolen" the game. I could go on [1]. [1] I believe I once posted a longer list, but HN crashed shortly afterward and had to be restored from backup. My post was lost.
- habitue 12y ago
  He's making a point to raise awareness of a propaganda term that's made it into the common lexicon, and saying its use should be discontinued when discussing copyright infringement. He's expressing a prescriptive statement, and you're replying with a descriptive statement.

Springtime 12y ago

> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. I did find this amusing. The irony is strong with this one, although they have some valid points expanded on in the Reddit post linked. Comment from a contributor on the time4popcorn repo: I am also waiting for a reply. You guys just copy other people's work and don't even give them proper credits... if you decide to start coding I could put you back in. Not if you keep stealing though.

kluivers 12y ago
Question is: what license is that work released under (GPL3?) and does that license require attribution?
- mkesper 12y ago
  Almost all licenses require attribution, at least at the file level.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
    - nitrogen 12y ago
      The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.
      - dragonwriter 12y ago
        > You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it. There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).

bryan_rasmussen 12y ago

They made something to facilitate piracy, most probably piracy not done for profit, but did not pirate something and then put it out as their own with the intention to make a profit.

peterhajas 12y ago
They're making an enabling technology which can solely be used for stealing. Seems like piracy to me.
- icebraining 12y ago
  It might be piracy, but it's definitively not stealing. The SCOTUS itself explained why.

ekianjo 12y ago

> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. You missed their point. They are angry about the ripoff because they include malware in it and try to pass for the real thing. Popcorn time does not pretend to be Metflix or something in terms of branding, so what's where your analogy ends

dspillett 12y ago

I once, in a previous incarnation as a naughty law-breaking youngster, frequented a torrent tracker that specialised in games. You should have seen the vitriol thrown around if someone dare copy someone else's copy/keygen/what-ever without giving appropriate credit... I was thrown off the site for pointing out how amusing the hypocrisy was.

hnarn 12y ago
Maybe you were thrown off because you failed to see the difference between simply copying copyrighted content without permission (filesharing), and copying something and claiming that you in fact created it yourself, explicitly (I made this!) or implicitly, by not attributing the original author (plagiarism).
- dspillett 12y ago
  There is no difference. The content producer worked on the content and wants what they want in exchange for it (indirectly for the effort): money. The ripper worked on ripping the content and wants what they want for it (indirectly for the effort): recognition. One of the usual complains was their "internal rips" being posted elsewhere even when posted without any attribution being removed (or at least with no claim of creator-ship added). There were "rippers" who tried to take credit for the efforts of others, but re-distributing outside the group was the main complaint (either with "correct" attribution or with no attribution at all). I was thrown off because I refused to apologise for not seeing the difference between one person taking the attitude "great, I'll take this and do what-ever I want to do with it under my own terms and not your's because I can and fuck you if you don't like it" and a second person also taking the attitude "great, I'll take this and do what-ever I want to do with it under my own terms and not your's because I can and fuck you if you don't like it".
  - habitue 12y ago
    There is a difference. When movies are copied, nobody takes the credits out and adds their name into them. We're talking about attribution vs. copyright. They're completely separate issues, and it trips people up every time something like this gets posted.