10 ms·

Popcorntime is leaving GitHub

183 points by lalmachado 12y ago

LoonyPandora 12y ago
Likely as a result of the DMCA takedown request that has blocked access to their repo: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...
buro9 12y ago
I've not used popcorntime and didn't really believe it would work with a smooth experience (and when you've got Netflix why bother?). But this: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m... ... this is great marketing for popcorntime. It shows it working and giving an experience that looks very much like Netflix. Seems like the MPAA have given popcorntime some free marketing. Reading the DMCA notice though, does it really apply to a repo of code? Their argument is that it can access infringed content (but so could a web browser, or network media player, etc) and that MGM vs Grokster means that "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". But if Github can be considered the distributor of the product (rather than just the hosting company for source code) then I'm not sure Github have ever intended or encouraged use of the product to infringe, or indeed whether Github have any interest in the use of code hosted in repositories by them. Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? Or will they challenge ones like this where an entity is requesting a takedown even though the code itself contains no infringed content and Github have not encouraged use of the code to infringe?
- laoba 12y ago
  "and when you've got Netflix why bother?)" Because Netflix takes forever to get the latest movies, and is filled with terrible straight to dvd movies! :)
  - opless 12y ago
    Not only that, is that Netflix (insert country other than the USA here) has a much smaller cache of films and TV shows that disappear and appear seemingly at random and without notice.
  - click170 12y ago
    And because Netflix contains wildly different content in different regions. My parents use Netflix and I recently got a request from them to set them up to access US Netflix. I didn't even know they were aware of the difference, but they are, and they're sick of the crap that shows up on our side of the boarder. Not Netflix' fault, and I'm elated that they're pressing the ISP issue, but there are valid concerns about content as well.
    - Patrick_Devine 12y ago
      Netflix adjusts to whatever region you're in, so getting "US Netflix" isn't going to work for your parents. You're going to need to set them up with something like www.unlocator.com which can spoof their region. Once they turn it on it will open up a lot of titles with their existing Netflix account.
      - ZoF 12y ago
        I thought that was implied by his statement.
        Patrick_Devine 12y ago
        I read it as they wanted a "US Netflix account" which is really no different than having a "UK" or "Canadian" Netflix account. Netflix doesn't make the distinction between where the account is, only where your IP address is located. This is in contrast to a company like Amazon where purchasing something from amazon.ca or amazon.co.uk is much different than buying from amazon.com. I'm not sure how this effects watching Prime when you're traveling, though, and if it's also IP based. At any rate, I don't think the implication is obvious.
- miopa 12y ago
  The source code is clearly not biased towards playing copyrighted content. If this DMCA notice is respected, any bittorrent related project should also be banned.
  - bagosm 12y ago
    Unfortunately for humanity it was respected and the repo has been offline for some days...
    - click170 12y ago
      Yes yes, but has PopcornTime filed a Counter Notification? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8027523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8027523
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
- thefreeman 12y ago
  Github is required to instantly remove infringing repositories when a DMCA request comes in. It is up to the repository owner to file a "Counter Notification" at which point the repository will be reinstated within 10-14 days. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy#b-counter-notification-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy#b-coun...
  - will_hughes 12y ago
    (Not a lawyer) My understanding is that you can't file a DMCA takedown against content/code that you don't own.
    - _ak 12y ago
      Well, you can, but that would be fraudulent. But whoever you sent the DMCA takedown notice to, it's not their concern and not their duty to check whether you're the rightful copyright holder or not.
      - dmd 12y ago
        Does this mean that someone could take down all of github by sending (fraudulent) DMCA takedown notices for every single repo (from some fake return address)? And then it would then be incumbent on the users to fight that?
        stefan_kendall3 12y ago
        Yes. But in that case, GitHub would likely fight an obviously fraudulent copyright claim, as it would wreck their business. They're not hurt at all by popcorntime going down.
        derefr 12y ago
        I don’t know, they seem to be being hurt a bit in the eyes of developers right here in this discussion.
- rmc 12y ago
  Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? I believe that's exactly what the DMCA requires that GitHub do. If GH want to continue to get the advantages (for them) of the DMCA (i.e. safe harbour protection), they need to just follow it without question.
- bdz 12y ago
  >and when you've got Netflix why bother? But PT is pretty awesome if you live in an EU country where Netflix is not available
  - noir_lord 12y ago
    or in the UK where Netflix Lite(TM) (aka the UK version of Netflix) is available. It really is wildly inferior to the US version and I think I'll be cancelling as soon as the GF has finished the few shows she does like on it.
    - StavrosK 12y ago
      If it's wildly inferior than the stunted US version, it must be pretty much useless. These days, I watch shows on http://ororo.tv/ http://ororo.tv/, but doubt it's very legal.
  - GutenYe 12y ago
    But PT does not have streaming feature.
    - SlashmanX 12y ago
      Yes it does. That's exactly what PT is Source: PT dev
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > (and when you've got Netflix why bother?). Many countries don't have Netflix yet. Or have crippled versions of it.
- emmett 12y ago
  The DMCA doesn't say "use your judgement to decide whether you think a takedown request is valid or not". It says "you must prosecute all syntactically valid takedown requests, and if someone sends invalid ones they can be sued". Most specifically, GitHub has no legal standing to challenge a takedown request. The uploader of the targeted content is the only one who can challenge. There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns. Given the size of copyright violation penalties, ignoring them is tantamount to corporate suicide.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns." This is false. I was personally involved in one very large one (190k+ source code projects) where we pushed back on clearly invalid legally (but not syntactically) DMCA requests all the time, such as for trademark violations, or claims for source they didn't own, or ...
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]
    - mh- 12y ago
      and now imagine if that effort had been put into keeping Google Code modern. instead, it was allowed to stagnate while GitHub ate its lunch.
      - DannyBee 12y ago
        I think you missed the point of Google Code. Google Code was not intended to "win". Google Code was intended to provide an alternative the worsening monoculture of Sourceforge, because it was becoming actively harmful to open source. In that, it succeeded wildly. Github does not appear to be a worsening monoculture (though it is, in a lot of ways, a monoculture).
  - nawitus 12y ago
    >There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns Are there zero such places outside the United States?
- masklinn 12y ago
  > Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? Github is legally required to do so, if they don't they're legally on the hook. The whole point of DMCA Title 2 (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) aka DMCA 512 is to create safe harbour for service providers (protect them from liability), but to claim safe harbor requires: 1. not financially benefiting from infringing activities 2. not be aware of obviously infringing activities before being noticed 3. act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material upon receiving a notice Point 3 has two clauses: purported infringing material means the service provider must not make any attempt at judging whether the infringement is real, if he does that he becomes liable because he's injected his own judgement in a case previously between the copyright owner and the purported infringer. The first clause has not been tested in courts (for precision), it's generally assumed to mean "under 24h" or at least "as soon as feasible" (e.g. ops may not be available over week-end). The service provider is not supposed to contact anybody before taking material down although he is free to notify the purported infringer before or while taking the content down (as long as takedown remains "expeditious"). Github can challenge a DMCA request, but in that case they lose their safe harbor provision and are on the hook if the DMCA was valid.
  - DannyBee 12y ago
    "DMCA notice is obviously invalid (e.g. misrepresentation cases)" This DMCA notice is obviously invalid, as it is a claim not that the source code identified infringes copyright, but that activities performed by users of a program that is compiled from source code that can be found on github, infringes. It's not even a remote indirect claim. There is nothing about the source code, as source code, that infringes. Just because you can make out a possible copyright claim against someone in court does not mean you can form a valid DMCA notice about it :)
    - gamblor956 12y ago
      You're missing the point. Under the DMCA, the service provider doesn't get to make that judgment. If it receives a notice that complies with the bare requirements of the law, it must remove the allegedly infringing material, and the user may then challenge the notice as "obviously invalid." Followup after actually reading the law. 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides that a notice includes "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity..." Popcorn Time is the subject of infringing activity, and hence this would be a valid takedown notice.
- disastermouse 12y ago
  I don't think it's just that it can access infringing content. I think it's that it was designed with the sole intent to watch infringing content. When you install and run it, it doesn't appear to have any non-infringing content available. Seems a lot different than saying they could just go after a generic web browser or a media player.
  - JetSpiegel 12y ago
    I think they have a lot of public domain films from archive.org. Not sure, though.
    - disastermouse 12y ago
      If so, it's not clear how to find those. The program start up with screen after screen of pirated movies and tv shows. But if the PT devs were smart, they'd put it back up as a generic streaming torrent client setup to run public domain videos out of the box.
- newaccountfool 12y ago
  > smooth experience (and when you've got Netflix why bother?) I had a smooth experience, and Netflix! You've got to be joking the content on Netflix is poor popcorn time has a much better library. Just download it and have a look no wonder you claiming such things if you've never used it.
- Istof 12y ago
  I have Netflix too and sometimes I download a movie before even checking if it's available on Netflix because there is so many titles missing when you are streaming...
maddev 12y ago
Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.
- eli 12y ago
  If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. If the author of repository feels the notice is unfair, they could send a Counter Notification which would obligate Github to put the repository back online (and the MPAA's next step would have to be a lawsuit).
  - maddev 12y ago
    > If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. They shouldn't want safe harbor then.
    - anonymousab 12y ago
      Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth? It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible.
      - maddev 12y ago
        > It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible. Watching a little bit of youtube in say e.g. Germany might change your mind. Right now the opposite is the case, Google is acting as an illegal minion who censors arbitrary videos by order of anyone who has some cash.
    - akerl_ 12y ago
      Not having safe harbor would mean that if anybody posted content to GitHub that did violate copyright, GitHub would be liable and would end up having to fight in court. Even if they won, they would be expending massive amounts of money and effort fighting copyright battles. These battles wouldn't even be fought "on behalf of their users", because the entities taking them to court would also be taking the end users to court.
jacob_smith 12y ago
I appreciate how they had to utilize PopcornTime to get those images; are all of those movies under their ownership?
- cmiles74 12y ago
  I believe that is the case, those movies are under their ownership.
- notatoad 12y ago
  The MPAA doesn't own any movies, but the are/were working as agents for the groups who do own the rights to those movies.
jonpaul 12y ago
Seems like a good opportunity to use [Gitlab](https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/) and a perhaps even a hosted Gitlab install? I know there are commercial hosted Gitlab providers, I can't seem to recall any though - a cursory Google search isn't returning much ATM.
- fredsted 12y ago
  All this makes me wonder if there's a p2p form of Git based on torrents, a "block chain" or similar where there isn't a master server to take down.
  - pault 12y ago
    My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't tell if you're joking or not, but git is distributed by nature. It's only centralized when we insist on putting everything on a single host.
    - fredsted 12y ago
      Yes, you're right of course. However seems like having a master git repository server is the best solution for using Git in teams. Especially large teams. Like, all open source project uses something like Github or Bitbucket these days. People aren't going to share patches via email to each other. In any case, you need a place to share code and it's easiest when that is a server that is owned by a single person or entity. Maybe this is where torrent tech could be useful. Magnet links need no central authority or server running to make a central copy accessible. There's just a group of machines running, no central place law enforcement could focus on. When you have thousands of machines across the world, DMCA is not practical.
      - pault 12y ago
        > People aren't going to share patches via email to each other. Why not?
  - joeyspn 12y ago
vova_feldman 12y ago
They won the battle, but they will never win the war!
- paletoy 12y ago
  To some extent popcorntime is self defeating. Once it become much better than netflix in every way,maybe people won't pay for content ?
  - StavrosK 12y ago
    Then maybe the MPAA will wake up and let Netflix improve, rather than keeping them as content-light as possible.
- tomjen3 12y ago
  Who won? Popcorn time had to move to a better host, MPAA can play their game of wack-a-mole (TM) and everybody keeps pirating.
ARothfusz 12y ago
I look forward to their next DMCA notice to GitHub, to take down their takedown notice, since it contains copyrighted images. I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to the software infringe on the DMCA. Shouldn't they also send pictures of the computers which are running Popcorntime to the computer manufacturers and tell them that they are infringing for enabling Popcorntime? And pictures of the running software to GNU for creating the compilers that compiled the code?
- pwg 12y ago
  >I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to the software infringe on the DMCA. Because when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. The DMCA gives the MPAA a hammer to go after copyright infringement. It is significantly easier to just apply that hammer to the hosting company of the software to try to make the software go away than it is to apply that hammer to the actual copyright infringement (one application vs. thousands of applications). So they just apply the hammer to that which they can apply it.
ksec 12y ago
Not a lawyer and dont know much about US's law. But i record there was an incident a long time ago about DVD Decrypter and Free Speech. The end was something that you can't hold the source code accountable. I thought you cant distribute, or have a binary form of program to downloads for your users, but source code of it should be allowed. Have I misunderstood the story or have things changed?
- disastermouse 12y ago
  I think you misunderstood. This appears to be the case you were thinking about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375010 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375... It found that the source code could violate the DMCA even considering free speech. The court forced him to take the DVD decryption source code down.
rdl 12y ago
If GitHub didn't allow Popcorn Time to contest the DMCA notice, that's a pretty big black mark against GitHub. It's reasonable that Popcorntime wouldn't want to get involved in a legal dispute, but a simple "no, we own this code and all copyright to it" should be sufficient. That end users of popcorntime can use it to violate copyright (although it's not a circumvention tool per se) isn't Github or popcorntime's problem.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- notatoad 12y ago
  that isn't how the DMCA works. unless github wants to become liable for everything anybody uploads to their site, they have to take down whatever a DMCA notice tells them to take down. Popcorntime can contest it and github can restore the files if the takedown is ruled invalid, but until then github has no options here. The DMCA is very much a "guilty until proven innocent" mechanism.
  - rdl 12y ago
    Some providers don't allow free-tier customers to respond to DMCA to have service restored. It appears from GitHub's policy, they do (https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy). The ideal, since notice can be email, is to notify the infringer of a DMCA complaint and let them counter respond very quickly, to minimize any service interruption. There are maximum response times, but no minimums. The entire process can be turned around from notice to "dude, you have DMCA" to "oh, hell no" inside an hour. (EDIT: Actually, this is incorrect. To do this requires various hacks, or accepting liability as the service provider.) The secret is usually providers actually want to get rid of their DMCA-attracting clients for commercial/cost reasons, so they rarely are willing to make the process of response particularly efficient.
    - gergles 12y ago
      No, there is a minimum. The content has to remain down for at least 10 business days AFTER the counter is received by the hosting provider, to give time for the purported copyright owner to go get an injunction or other relief. (The counter also requires disclosure of intensive amounts of personal data, which the initial notification does not, but that's probably the smallest problem with the DMCA system.) See 512(g)(2) B and C of the DMCA for cites.
mckoss 12y ago
Note that github's dmca process explicitly states that takedown requests include an oath at risk of committing criminal perjury for knowingly false statements about copyright claims. We need to get a prosecutor to start trying these cases and putting people in jail to curtail the dmca mills and over-aggressive claimants. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy
ChuckMcM 12y ago
Presumably Popcorntime could counter file and that would then free up Github from responsibility under the safe harbor clause. When I first learned about Tor and the way it worked I always figured there would be a Tor equivalent of Github out there. The recipe for building such a site is pretty straight forward. Add a tor:// URI to git and there ya go.
SchizoDuckie 12y ago
I was just thinking about some p2p distributed git, and then I figured we already have it: Wouldn't it help to just publish a BitTorrent sync url somewhere and host the bare git in that that folder so that it always updates and syncs directly to the cloud? http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/ http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/
- joeyspn 12y ago
  Here you go... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain
joeyspn 12y ago
Gitchain to the rescue? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain
chetanahuja 12y ago
I had tried out the original popcorn client (for studying the latest techniques of evil hackers bent on destroying the meager livelihood of movie studios) but was only dimly aware of the open-source efforts. Looks like I need to study this open source project for examples of similar offenses now(* ). (* ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
QuiteMouse 12y ago
Looks like plex. I don't get the big deal.

183 points by lalmachado 12y ago

Likely as a result of the DMCA takedown request that has blocked access to their repo: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...

buro9 12y ago

I've not used popcorntime and didn't really believe it would work with a smooth experience (and when you've got Netflix why bother?). But this: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m... ... this is great marketing for popcorntime. It shows it working and giving an experience that looks very much like Netflix. Seems like the MPAA have given popcorntime some free marketing. Reading the DMCA notice though, does it really apply to a repo of code? Their argument is that it can access infringed content (but so could a web browser, or network media player, etc) and that MGM vs Grokster means that "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". But if Github can be considered the distributor of the product (rather than just the hosting company for source code) then I'm not sure Github have ever intended or encouraged use of the product to infringe, or indeed whether Github have any interest in the use of code hosted in repositories by them. Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? Or will they challenge ones like this where an entity is requesting a takedown even though the code itself contains no infringed content and Github have not encouraged use of the code to infringe?

laoba 12y ago
"and when you've got Netflix why bother?)" Because Netflix takes forever to get the latest movies, and is filled with terrible straight to dvd movies! :)
- opless 12y ago
  Not only that, is that Netflix (insert country other than the USA here) has a much smaller cache of films and TV shows that disappear and appear seemingly at random and without notice.
- click170 12y ago
  And because Netflix contains wildly different content in different regions. My parents use Netflix and I recently got a request from them to set them up to access US Netflix. I didn't even know they were aware of the difference, but they are, and they're sick of the crap that shows up on our side of the boarder. Not Netflix' fault, and I'm elated that they're pressing the ISP issue, but there are valid concerns about content as well.
  - Patrick_Devine 12y ago
    Netflix adjusts to whatever region you're in, so getting "US Netflix" isn't going to work for your parents. You're going to need to set them up with something like www.unlocator.com which can spoof their region. Once they turn it on it will open up a lot of titles with their existing Netflix account.
    - ZoF 12y ago
      I thought that was implied by his statement.
      - Patrick_Devine 12y ago
        I read it as they wanted a "US Netflix account" which is really no different than having a "UK" or "Canadian" Netflix account. Netflix doesn't make the distinction between where the account is, only where your IP address is located. This is in contrast to a company like Amazon where purchasing something from amazon.ca or amazon.co.uk is much different than buying from amazon.com. I'm not sure how this effects watching Prime when you're traveling, though, and if it's also IP based. At any rate, I don't think the implication is obvious.
miopa 12y ago
The source code is clearly not biased towards playing copyrighted content. If this DMCA notice is respected, any bittorrent related project should also be banned.
- bagosm 12y ago
  Unfortunately for humanity it was respected and the repo has been offline for some days...
  - click170 12y ago
    Yes yes, but has PopcornTime filed a Counter Notification? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8027523 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8027523
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
thefreeman 12y ago
Github is required to instantly remove infringing repositories when a DMCA request comes in. It is up to the repository owner to file a "Counter Notification" at which point the repository will be reinstated within 10-14 days. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy#b-counter-notification-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy#b-coun...
- will_hughes 12y ago
  (Not a lawyer) My understanding is that you can't file a DMCA takedown against content/code that you don't own.
  - _ak 12y ago
    Well, you can, but that would be fraudulent. But whoever you sent the DMCA takedown notice to, it's not their concern and not their duty to check whether you're the rightful copyright holder or not.
    - dmd 12y ago
      Does this mean that someone could take down all of github by sending (fraudulent) DMCA takedown notices for every single repo (from some fake return address)? And then it would then be incumbent on the users to fight that?
      - stefan_kendall3 12y ago
        Yes. But in that case, GitHub would likely fight an obviously fraudulent copyright claim, as it would wreck their business. They're not hurt at all by popcorntime going down.
        derefr 12y ago
        I don’t know, they seem to be being hurt a bit in the eyes of developers right here in this discussion.
rmc 12y ago
Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? I believe that's exactly what the DMCA requires that GitHub do. If GH want to continue to get the advantages (for them) of the DMCA (i.e. safe harbour protection), they need to just follow it without question.
bdz 12y ago
>and when you've got Netflix why bother? But PT is pretty awesome if you live in an EU country where Netflix is not available
- noir_lord 12y ago
  or in the UK where Netflix Lite(TM) (aka the UK version of Netflix) is available. It really is wildly inferior to the US version and I think I'll be cancelling as soon as the GF has finished the few shows she does like on it.
  - StavrosK 12y ago
    If it's wildly inferior than the stunted US version, it must be pretty much useless. These days, I watch shows on http://ororo.tv/ http://ororo.tv/, but doubt it's very legal.
- GutenYe 12y ago
  But PT does not have streaming feature.
  - SlashmanX 12y ago
    Yes it does. That's exactly what PT is Source: PT dev
ekianjo 12y ago
> (and when you've got Netflix why bother?). Many countries don't have Netflix yet. Or have crippled versions of it.
emmett 12y ago
The DMCA doesn't say "use your judgement to decide whether you think a takedown request is valid or not". It says "you must prosecute all syntactically valid takedown requests, and if someone sends invalid ones they can be sued". Most specifically, GitHub has no legal standing to challenge a takedown request. The uploader of the targeted content is the only one who can challenge. There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns. Given the size of copyright violation penalties, ignoring them is tantamount to corporate suicide.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns." This is false. I was personally involved in one very large one (190k+ source code projects) where we pushed back on clearly invalid legally (but not syntactically) DMCA requests all the time, such as for trademark violations, or claims for source they didn't own, or ...
  - deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]
  - mh- 12y ago
    and now imagine if that effort had been put into keeping Google Code modern. instead, it was allowed to stagnate while GitHub ate its lunch.
    - DannyBee 12y ago
      I think you missed the point of Google Code. Google Code was not intended to "win". Google Code was intended to provide an alternative the worsening monoculture of Sourceforge, because it was becoming actively harmful to open source. In that, it succeeded wildly. Github does not appear to be a worsening monoculture (though it is, in a lot of ways, a monoculture).
- nawitus 12y ago
  >There are basically zero places online hosting content from 3rd party entities which do not honor DMCA takedowns Are there zero such places outside the United States?
masklinn 12y ago
> Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? Github is legally required to do so, if they don't they're legally on the hook. The whole point of DMCA Title 2 (the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act) aka DMCA 512 is to create safe harbour for service providers (protect them from liability), but to claim safe harbor requires: 1. not financially benefiting from infringing activities 2. not be aware of obviously infringing activities before being noticed 3. act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material upon receiving a notice Point 3 has two clauses: purported infringing material means the service provider must not make any attempt at judging whether the infringement is real, if he does that he becomes liable because he's injected his own judgement in a case previously between the copyright owner and the purported infringer. The first clause has not been tested in courts (for precision), it's generally assumed to mean "under 24h" or at least "as soon as feasible" (e.g. ops may not be available over week-end). The service provider is not supposed to contact anybody before taking material down although he is free to notify the purported infringer before or while taking the content down (as long as takedown remains "expeditious"). Github can challenge a DMCA request, but in that case they lose their safe harbor provision and are on the hook if the DMCA was valid.
- DannyBee 12y ago
  "DMCA notice is obviously invalid (e.g. misrepresentation cases)" This DMCA notice is obviously invalid, as it is a claim not that the source code identified infringes copyright, but that activities performed by users of a program that is compiled from source code that can be found on github, infringes. It's not even a remote indirect claim. There is nothing about the source code, as source code, that infringes. Just because you can make out a possible copyright claim against someone in court does not mean you can form a valid DMCA notice about it :)
  - gamblor956 12y ago
    You're missing the point. Under the DMCA, the service provider doesn't get to make that judgment. If it receives a notice that complies with the bare requirements of the law, it must remove the allegedly infringing material, and the user may then challenge the notice as "obviously invalid." Followup after actually reading the law. 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides that a notice includes "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity..." Popcorn Time is the subject of infringing activity, and hence this would be a valid takedown notice.
disastermouse 12y ago
I don't think it's just that it can access infringing content. I think it's that it was designed with the sole intent to watch infringing content. When you install and run it, it doesn't appear to have any non-infringing content available. Seems a lot different than saying they could just go after a generic web browser or a media player.
- JetSpiegel 12y ago
  I think they have a lot of public domain films from archive.org. Not sure, though.
  - disastermouse 12y ago
    If so, it's not clear how to find those. The program start up with screen after screen of pirated movies and tv shows. But if the PT devs were smart, they'd put it back up as a generic streaming torrent client setup to run public domain videos out of the box.
newaccountfool 12y ago
> smooth experience (and when you've got Netflix why bother?) I had a smooth experience, and Netflix! You've got to be joking the content on Netflix is poor popcorn time has a much better library. Just download it and have a look no wonder you claiming such things if you've never used it.
Istof 12y ago
I have Netflix too and sometimes I download a movie before even checking if it's available on Netflix because there is so many titles missing when you are streaming...

maddev 12y ago

Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.

eli 12y ago
If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. If the author of repository feels the notice is unfair, they could send a Counter Notification which would obligate Github to put the repository back online (and the MPAA's next step would have to be a lawsuit).
- maddev 12y ago
  > If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. They shouldn't want safe harbor then.
  - anonymousab 12y ago
    Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth? It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible.
    - maddev 12y ago
      > It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible. Watching a little bit of youtube in say e.g. Germany might change your mind. Right now the opposite is the case, Google is acting as an illegal minion who censors arbitrary videos by order of anyone who has some cash.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Not having safe harbor would mean that if anybody posted content to GitHub that did violate copyright, GitHub would be liable and would end up having to fight in court. Even if they won, they would be expending massive amounts of money and effort fighting copyright battles. These battles wouldn't even be fought "on behalf of their users", because the entities taking them to court would also be taking the end users to court.

jacob_smith 12y ago

I appreciate how they had to utilize PopcornTime to get those images; are all of those movies under their ownership?

cmiles74 12y ago
I believe that is the case, those movies are under their ownership.
notatoad 12y ago
The MPAA doesn't own any movies, but the are/were working as agents for the groups who do own the rights to those movies.

jonpaul 12y ago

Seems like a good opportunity to use [Gitlab](https://about.gitlab.com/ https://about.gitlab.com/) and a perhaps even a hosted Gitlab install? I know there are commercial hosted Gitlab providers, I can't seem to recall any though - a cursory Google search isn't returning much ATM.

fredsted 12y ago
All this makes me wonder if there's a p2p form of Git based on torrents, a "block chain" or similar where there isn't a master server to take down.
- pault 12y ago
  My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't tell if you're joking or not, but git is distributed by nature. It's only centralized when we insist on putting everything on a single host.
  - fredsted 12y ago
    Yes, you're right of course. However seems like having a master git repository server is the best solution for using Git in teams. Especially large teams. Like, all open source project uses something like Github or Bitbucket these days. People aren't going to share patches via email to each other. In any case, you need a place to share code and it's easiest when that is a server that is owned by a single person or entity. Maybe this is where torrent tech could be useful. Magnet links need no central authority or server running to make a central copy accessible. There's just a group of machines running, no central place law enforcement could focus on. When you have thousands of machines across the world, DMCA is not practical.
    - pault 12y ago
      > People aren't going to share patches via email to each other. Why not?
- joeyspn 12y ago

vova_feldman 12y ago

They won the battle, but they will never win the war!

paletoy 12y ago
To some extent popcorntime is self defeating. Once it become much better than netflix in every way,maybe people won't pay for content ?
- StavrosK 12y ago
  Then maybe the MPAA will wake up and let Netflix improve, rather than keeping them as content-light as possible.
tomjen3 12y ago
Who won? Popcorn time had to move to a better host, MPAA can play their game of wack-a-mole (TM) and everybody keeps pirating.

ARothfusz 12y ago

I look forward to their next DMCA notice to GitHub, to take down their takedown notice, since it contains copyrighted images. I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to the software infringe on the DMCA. Shouldn't they also send pictures of the computers which are running Popcorntime to the computer manufacturers and tell them that they are infringing for enabling Popcorntime? And pictures of the running software to GNU for creating the compilers that compiled the code?

pwg 12y ago
>I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to the software infringe on the DMCA. Because when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like nails. The DMCA gives the MPAA a hammer to go after copyright infringement. It is significantly easier to just apply that hammer to the hosting company of the software to try to make the software go away than it is to apply that hammer to the actual copyright infringement (one application vs. thousands of applications). So they just apply the hammer to that which they can apply it.

ksec 12y ago

Not a lawyer and dont know much about US's law. But i record there was an incident a long time ago about DVD Decrypter and Free Speech. The end was something that you can't hold the source code accountable. I thought you cant distribute, or have a binary form of program to downloads for your users, but source code of it should be allowed. Have I misunderstood the story or have things changed?

disastermouse 12y ago
I think you misunderstood. This appears to be the case you were thinking about: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375010 http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375... It found that the source code could violate the DMCA even considering free speech. The court forced him to take the DVD decryption source code down.

rdl 12y ago

If GitHub didn't allow Popcorn Time to contest the DMCA notice, that's a pretty big black mark against GitHub. It's reasonable that Popcorntime wouldn't want to get involved in a legal dispute, but a simple "no, we own this code and all copyright to it" should be sufficient. That end users of popcorntime can use it to violate copyright (although it's not a circumvention tool per se) isn't Github or popcorntime's problem.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
notatoad 12y ago
that isn't how the DMCA works. unless github wants to become liable for everything anybody uploads to their site, they have to take down whatever a DMCA notice tells them to take down. Popcorntime can contest it and github can restore the files if the takedown is ruled invalid, but until then github has no options here. The DMCA is very much a "guilty until proven innocent" mechanism.
- rdl 12y ago
  Some providers don't allow free-tier customers to respond to DMCA to have service restored. It appears from GitHub's policy, they do (https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy). The ideal, since notice can be email, is to notify the infringer of a DMCA complaint and let them counter respond very quickly, to minimize any service interruption. There are maximum response times, but no minimums. The entire process can be turned around from notice to "dude, you have DMCA" to "oh, hell no" inside an hour. (EDIT: Actually, this is incorrect. To do this requires various hacks, or accepting liability as the service provider.) The secret is usually providers actually want to get rid of their DMCA-attracting clients for commercial/cost reasons, so they rarely are willing to make the process of response particularly efficient.
  - gergles 12y ago
    No, there is a minimum. The content has to remain down for at least 10 business days AFTER the counter is received by the hosting provider, to give time for the purported copyright owner to go get an injunction or other relief. (The counter also requires disclosure of intensive amounts of personal data, which the initial notification does not, but that's probably the smallest problem with the DMCA system.) See 512(g)(2) B and C of the DMCA for cites.

mckoss 12y ago

Note that github's dmca process explicitly states that takedown requests include an oath at risk of committing criminal perjury for knowingly false statements about copyright claims. We need to get a prosecutor to start trying these cases and putting people in jail to curtail the dmca mills and over-aggressive claimants. https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy

ChuckMcM 12y ago

Presumably Popcorntime could counter file and that would then free up Github from responsibility under the safe harbor clause. When I first learned about Tor and the way it worked I always figured there would be a Tor equivalent of Github out there. The recipe for building such a site is pretty straight forward. Add a tor:// URI to git and there ya go.

SchizoDuckie 12y ago

I was just thinking about some p2p distributed git, and then I figured we already have it: Wouldn't it help to just publish a BitTorrent sync url somewhere and host the bare git in that that folder so that it always updates and syncs directly to the cloud? http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/ http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/

joeyspn 12y ago
Here you go... https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain

joeyspn 12y ago

Gitchain to the rescue? https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain

chetanahuja 12y ago

I had tried out the original popcorn client (for studying the latest techniques of evil hackers bent on destroying the meager livelihood of movie studios) but was only dimly aware of the open-source efforts. Looks like I need to study this open source project for examples of similar offenses now(* ). (* ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect

QuiteMouse 12y ago

Looks like plex. I don't get the big deal.