> 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 an

> 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