8 ms·

Popcorntime-desktop repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown

55 points by omribahumi 12y ago

llamataboot 12y ago
A interesting code as speech issue could be made here for sure. Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright. I don't think github will fight this, they probably on't want to pick a battle with some of the most monied legal interests around, but I sure wish they would.
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  Except we all know it is. Just like I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for. IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.
  - justizin 12y ago
    yes, but lock picking tools are legal. the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.
  - llamataboot 12y ago
    So should we outlaw the distribution of speech materials that teach how to make lockpicks?
  - Crito 12y ago
    In sane jurisdictions lockpicks are perfectly legal for everyone (not just licensed locksmiths) because, although people people may claim that "we all know what they are for", tools should not be illegal just because they can be used for something illegal. Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.
  - iopq 12y ago
    You could take down the pirate bay legally because most of its use as a search engine is for illegal content. Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream. Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs. Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal. Do you see how slippery the slope is?
    - justizin 12y ago
      the pirate bay has been taken down several times. ;)
      - angersock 12y ago
        And yet it keeps coming back! Perhaps there is a reason for this?
        res0nat0r 12y ago
        Because people really like being able to download movies, music and games without paying for them?
    - PM_Tech 12y ago
      It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut. If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries. Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property. As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
      - 12y ago
  - forrestpitz 12y ago
    I guess the question is should the makers of lockpicks be punished for how they are used (or for that matter be stopped from distributing their lockpicks). There are plenty of commercially available products that can be use for illegal activities but we don't prevent them from being sold (let alone given away for free)
  - jjoonathan 12y ago
    > I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for. We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry. http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.
    - PM_Tech 12y ago
      Actually it shouldn't. It has been proven that the only use of Popcorn Time is to facilitate copyright infringement. It is designed explicitly for that use. Hence banned. Mainly because Judges are not stupid and Developers are not as clever as they think they are. Good with math sure; not so good with the finer points of the law despite their astoundingly arrogant perception of themselves.
  - angersock 12y ago
    It's not that we think they're stupid. It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense. It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s. It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do. It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information. "Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player. Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.
    - PM_Tech 12y ago
      It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots. So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles. It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research. It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie. Seriously; just grow up.
      - angersock 12y ago
        Here, try reading: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-the-war-on-pedestrians/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-... Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense. As for cigarettes, consider the old ads: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_1777633,00.html http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_17... As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled). You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.
  - smtddr 12y ago
    So... I'm curious, do you think a DMCA takedown on my youtube video[1] about cracking software would be fair? 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM
    - PM_Tech 12y ago
      Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family? A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
      - angersock 12y ago
        Really? You advocate pulling down a video about what is effectively a debugging technique, just because the case study is breaking some DRM? Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously. "a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.
        PM_Tech 12y ago
        Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes? You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM? That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile. Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada... Honestly. Grow up.
- drewcrawford 12y ago
  > Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as what the law is currently, I think you are wrong. The takedown notice cites MGM vs Grokster [0] which held as follows: > One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24. That case used 3 elements to determine whether the defendant had "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement": 1. That defendant "aim[ed] to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement" 2. Did not develop filtering tools 3. That defendants had a motive (advertising revenue) to increase the use of the software From my armchair, elements 1 and 2 seem identical to MGM vs Grokster. Popcorn Time has a plausible argument on the third element, but who knows really. This is a question to put before a federal judge. [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html
res0nat0r 12y ago
I think software devs need to get used to the fact that if the app they are designing is primarily used to facilitate or encourage piracy, then these type of takedowns are going to happen.
- alelefant 12y ago
  Especially when hosted by a company residing in a G8 nation.
  - Aldo_MX 12y ago
    G7
- omribahumi 12y ago
  Would you say the same thing about the bittorrent protocol? Bitcoin?
  - res0nat0r 12y ago
    Bittorrent is a generic protocol. This software is designed from the ground up to watch pirated movies.
    - angersock 12y ago
      What if I want to watch movies that are released by the creators for free? Who says it has to nnly be for copyrighted material?
      - bitJericho 12y ago
        The screenshots of the applications clearly showed copyrighted works being pirated. Just because free works are available doesn't mean that's its primary purpose.
        wyager 12y ago
wyager 12y ago
Ok, who's going to make PirateHub?
Remiii 12y ago
It's the same for popcorntime.io on GitHub: https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app
arianvanp 12y ago
There isn't any copyright-infringing material hosted on those repositories. How can such a takedown request be taken seriously? I'm no copyright-guru but this smells murky.
- vernie 12y ago
  A take-down notice needn't have any merit, it just needs to spook whoever you send it enough to comply.
- naturalethic 12y ago
  They cite the relevant sections of the law that speak to "encouragement" to infringe copyright.
- delluminatus 12y ago
  The text of the notice states, "Attached as Exhibit A is a series of screenshots taken from within the applications of each Project that includes images of copyrighted works available through the Projects" In other words, the notice seems to be based on the idea that because copyrighted works are available through the application, the application is an appropriate target for a takedown notice, on the basis of some screenshots. Maybe I'll issue a takedown notice for https://github.com/chromium/chromium https://github.com/chromium/chromium and attach some screenshots of YouTube video listings.
  - eam 12y ago
    That's ridiculous. By the same logic, that's like trying to ban DVD players because they too can technically play copyrighted material...
    - ewzimm 12y ago
      I could take a screenshot of their screenshot and issue a DMCA takedown request against Windows. Unfortunately, the DMCA is set up to encourage inmediate compliance with unsubstantiated claims for anyone witnout Microsoft-level legal. That doesn't mean it will stick, and I bet Popcorn Time will be back soon.
Siecje 12y ago
If you create a video player that can play DVDs are you also infringing on their copyright?
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  You are if the video player finds copyright DVDs and then delivers them to your door without the permission of the content creator. So yes. Stop being absurd.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    How is the DVD player supposed to know whether you've got permission or not? Buy the way, the fact that they're "copyright" is irrelevant. Every new work, including ever Creative Commons license work is copyrighted.
- justizin 12y ago
  Actually, if you look into the DeCSS debacle, this was an early test of the DMCA. A Windows software DVD player leaked its' keys, and this was used to create a small bit of code that broke the DVD CSS DRM scheme. Of course, you have never used any software that rips DVDs into video files, but if you had, it would almost definitely be based on this code, which was printed on t-shirts as a means of distribution.
- hookshot 12y ago
  The ability to play a legitimate dvd would make the player qualify for safe harbor under the Betamax case.
rcthompson 12y ago
Here is the direct link to the takedown notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...
- TkTech 12y ago
  That's actually one of the most reasonable takedowns I've ever seen on github. It was clearly written by a human (ignoring the boilerplate) who had bothered to actually look at the project and at how git[hub] operates ("forks", "branches"). Normally it's just a long list of URLs flagged by a bot then sent without ever having a human look at it.
  - rcthompson 12y ago
    Yes, it's very well written, except for the only sentence that matters, which is a completely unsubstantiated claim of infringement that has nothing to do with the rest of the letter. Perhaps the spent some extra time making this look pretty because they anticipated a bit of scrutiny?
    - PM_Tech 12y ago
      Apart from the fact of being completely substantiated of course. But hey, don't let actual facts get in the way of your opinion.
kirualex 12y ago
We could all argue for ages about the legality of such action, but we all know what popcorn time is for : browsing and viewing copyrighted material. The real issue is the current state of copyright law, created from an obsolete model and then molded through intensive lobbying from the interested parties. It was said thousands of times, and we will probably need to say it thousands of times more to get this to change.
hookshot 12y ago
Unfortunately, it looks like it is impossible to use Popcorn Time for any non infringing purposes. You can't add other trackers and it seems to filter out torrents that aren't from popular movie/tv piracy release groups. The screenshots and the software's tagline that "they want to make the experience of watching torrent movies as simple as possible" support the argument that they are aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for infringement. The only case that could be defensible is that Popcorn Time is developed as a proof of concept and is not intended for actual use. I still don't think it would qualify because the use of Popcorn time as a way to stream movies is more "commercially significant" than any other use.
- glomph 12y ago
  You can use it to stream any torrent. Obviously that doesn't change its primary function but it is a little different to your claim.
  - hookshot 12y ago
    how? I didn't see a way to add trackers or magnet links
    - glomph 12y ago
      Drag the torrent you want to add onto the client.
PM_Tech 12y ago
I absolutely love that the majority of this thread are claiming all sorts of legal protections for Popcorn Time - all the way from free speech to ludicrous comparisons with screenshotting screenshots. So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all... "The law is wrong and archaic!" Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron. One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff? Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.
- err4nt 12y ago
  I dont steal content I didn't pay for. I have never used popcorn time! yet I am upset that the DMCA is applied here against code. Surely if they have a copyright claim to the code they can issue it, but issuing a copyright claim based on the actions of a software user is a BIG stretch to me. Has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    It's not a big stretch. It's not a stretch at all. It is valid case law. The end.

55 points by omribahumi 12y ago

A interesting code as speech issue could be made here for sure. Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright. I don't think github will fight this, they probably on't want to pick a battle with some of the most monied legal interests around, but I sure wish they would.

PM_Tech 12y ago
Except we all know it is. Just like I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for. IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.
- justizin 12y ago
  yes, but lock picking tools are legal. the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.
- llamataboot 12y ago
  So should we outlaw the distribution of speech materials that teach how to make lockpicks?
- Crito 12y ago
  In sane jurisdictions lockpicks are perfectly legal for everyone (not just licensed locksmiths) because, although people people may claim that "we all know what they are for", tools should not be illegal just because they can be used for something illegal. Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.
- iopq 12y ago
  You could take down the pirate bay legally because most of its use as a search engine is for illegal content. Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream. Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs. Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal. Do you see how slippery the slope is?
  - justizin 12y ago
    the pirate bay has been taken down several times. ;)
    - angersock 12y ago
      And yet it keeps coming back! Perhaps there is a reason for this?
      - res0nat0r 12y ago
        Because people really like being able to download movies, music and games without paying for them?
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut. If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries. Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property. As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
    - 12y ago
- forrestpitz 12y ago
  I guess the question is should the makers of lockpicks be punished for how they are used (or for that matter be stopped from distributing their lockpicks). There are plenty of commercially available products that can be use for illegal activities but we don't prevent them from being sold (let alone given away for free)
- jjoonathan 12y ago
  > I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for. We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry. http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    Actually it shouldn't. It has been proven that the only use of Popcorn Time is to facilitate copyright infringement. It is designed explicitly for that use. Hence banned. Mainly because Judges are not stupid and Developers are not as clever as they think they are. Good with math sure; not so good with the finer points of the law despite their astoundingly arrogant perception of themselves.
- angersock 12y ago
  It's not that we think they're stupid. It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense. It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s. It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do. It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information. "Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player. Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots. So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles. It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research. It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie. Seriously; just grow up.
    - angersock 12y ago
      Here, try reading: http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-the-war-on-pedestrians/ http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-... Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense. As for cigarettes, consider the old ads: http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_1777633,00.html http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_17... As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled). You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.
- smtddr 12y ago
  So... I'm curious, do you think a DMCA takedown on my youtube video[1] about cracking software would be fair? 1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family? A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
    - angersock 12y ago
      Really? You advocate pulling down a video about what is effectively a debugging technique, just because the case study is breaking some DRM? Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously. "a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.
      - PM_Tech 12y ago
        Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes? You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM? That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile. Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada... Honestly. Grow up.
drewcrawford 12y ago
> Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright. I'm not a lawyer, but as far as what the law is currently, I think you are wrong. The takedown notice cites MGM vs Grokster [0] which held as follows: > One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24. That case used 3 elements to determine whether the defendant had "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement": 1. That defendant "aim[ed] to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement" 2. Did not develop filtering tools 3. That defendants had a motive (advertising revenue) to increase the use of the software From my armchair, elements 1 and 2 seem identical to MGM vs Grokster. Popcorn Time has a plausible argument on the third element, but who knows really. This is a question to put before a federal judge. [0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html

res0nat0r 12y ago

I think software devs need to get used to the fact that if the app they are designing is primarily used to facilitate or encourage piracy, then these type of takedowns are going to happen.

alelefant 12y ago
Especially when hosted by a company residing in a G8 nation.
- Aldo_MX 12y ago
  G7
omribahumi 12y ago
Would you say the same thing about the bittorrent protocol? Bitcoin?
- res0nat0r 12y ago
  Bittorrent is a generic protocol. This software is designed from the ground up to watch pirated movies.
  - angersock 12y ago
    What if I want to watch movies that are released by the creators for free? Who says it has to nnly be for copyrighted material?
    - bitJericho 12y ago
      The screenshots of the applications clearly showed copyrighted works being pirated. Just because free works are available doesn't mean that's its primary purpose.
      - wyager 12y ago

wyager 12y ago

Ok, who's going to make PirateHub?

Remiii 12y ago

It's the same for popcorntime.io on GitHub: https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app

arianvanp 12y ago

There isn't any copyright-infringing material hosted on those repositories. How can such a takedown request be taken seriously? I'm no copyright-guru but this smells murky.

vernie 12y ago
A take-down notice needn't have any merit, it just needs to spook whoever you send it enough to comply.
naturalethic 12y ago
They cite the relevant sections of the law that speak to "encouragement" to infringe copyright.
delluminatus 12y ago
The text of the notice states, "Attached as Exhibit A is a series of screenshots taken from within the applications of each Project that includes images of copyrighted works available through the Projects" In other words, the notice seems to be based on the idea that because copyrighted works are available through the application, the application is an appropriate target for a takedown notice, on the basis of some screenshots. Maybe I'll issue a takedown notice for https://github.com/chromium/chromium https://github.com/chromium/chromium and attach some screenshots of YouTube video listings.
- eam 12y ago
  That's ridiculous. By the same logic, that's like trying to ban DVD players because they too can technically play copyrighted material...
  - ewzimm 12y ago
    I could take a screenshot of their screenshot and issue a DMCA takedown request against Windows. Unfortunately, the DMCA is set up to encourage inmediate compliance with unsubstantiated claims for anyone witnout Microsoft-level legal. That doesn't mean it will stick, and I bet Popcorn Time will be back soon.

Siecje 12y ago

If you create a video player that can play DVDs are you also infringing on their copyright?

PM_Tech 12y ago
You are if the video player finds copyright DVDs and then delivers them to your door without the permission of the content creator. So yes. Stop being absurd.
- icebraining 12y ago
  How is the DVD player supposed to know whether you've got permission or not? Buy the way, the fact that they're "copyright" is irrelevant. Every new work, including ever Creative Commons license work is copyrighted.
justizin 12y ago
Actually, if you look into the DeCSS debacle, this was an early test of the DMCA. A Windows software DVD player leaked its' keys, and this was used to create a small bit of code that broke the DVD CSS DRM scheme. Of course, you have never used any software that rips DVDs into video files, but if you had, it would almost definitely be based on this code, which was printed on t-shirts as a means of distribution.
hookshot 12y ago
The ability to play a legitimate dvd would make the player qualify for safe harbor under the Betamax case.

rcthompson 12y ago

Here is the direct link to the takedown notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...

TkTech 12y ago
That's actually one of the most reasonable takedowns I've ever seen on github. It was clearly written by a human (ignoring the boilerplate) who had bothered to actually look at the project and at how git[hub] operates ("forks", "branches"). Normally it's just a long list of URLs flagged by a bot then sent without ever having a human look at it.
- rcthompson 12y ago
  Yes, it's very well written, except for the only sentence that matters, which is a completely unsubstantiated claim of infringement that has nothing to do with the rest of the letter. Perhaps the spent some extra time making this look pretty because they anticipated a bit of scrutiny?
  - PM_Tech 12y ago
    Apart from the fact of being completely substantiated of course. But hey, don't let actual facts get in the way of your opinion.

kirualex 12y ago

We could all argue for ages about the legality of such action, but we all know what popcorn time is for : browsing and viewing copyrighted material. The real issue is the current state of copyright law, created from an obsolete model and then molded through intensive lobbying from the interested parties. It was said thousands of times, and we will probably need to say it thousands of times more to get this to change.

hookshot 12y ago

Unfortunately, it looks like it is impossible to use Popcorn Time for any non infringing purposes. You can't add other trackers and it seems to filter out torrents that aren't from popular movie/tv piracy release groups. The screenshots and the software's tagline that "they want to make the experience of watching torrent movies as simple as possible" support the argument that they are aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for infringement. The only case that could be defensible is that Popcorn Time is developed as a proof of concept and is not intended for actual use. I still don't think it would qualify because the use of Popcorn time as a way to stream movies is more "commercially significant" than any other use.

glomph 12y ago
You can use it to stream any torrent. Obviously that doesn't change its primary function but it is a little different to your claim.
- hookshot 12y ago
  how? I didn't see a way to add trackers or magnet links
  - glomph 12y ago
    Drag the torrent you want to add onto the client.

PM_Tech 12y ago

I absolutely love that the majority of this thread are claiming all sorts of legal protections for Popcorn Time - all the way from free speech to ludicrous comparisons with screenshotting screenshots. So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all... "The law is wrong and archaic!" Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron. One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff? Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.

err4nt 12y ago
I dont steal content I didn't pay for. I have never used popcorn time! yet I am upset that the DMCA is applied here against code. Surely if they have a copyright claim to the code they can issue it, but issuing a copyright claim based on the actions of a software user is a BIG stretch to me. Has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.
- PM_Tech 12y ago
  It's not a big stretch. It's not a stretch at all. It is valid case law. The end.