6 ms·

> Attached as Exhibit A is a series of screenshots taken from within the applications of each Project that includes images of copyrighted works available throug

by sarahj 12y ago

> 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. The representative titles shown in Exhibit A consist of only some of the motion pictures and television programs that are owned or controlled by the MPAA Member Studios and that are being infringed via the Projects. Exhibit A is provided as a representative sample of the infringements being committed as a result of the operation of the Projects and to demonstrate the readily apparent nature of the massive infringement occurring via the Projects. So by this logic...the source code for any web browser, torrent client, media player etc. etc. should be subject to these notices because they can be used to infringe copyright? After all, through any of those applications, I can take a series of actions which could infringe copyright.... Maybe we can skirt by with the general purpose nature of the above tools...so what about tools used to facilitate penetration testing (which can also be used for computer crime) - should we get rid of that source code too? I don't know the architecture of popcorn time, but if they published a generalized application which when given a configuration file (sources of infringing content etc.) would allow copyright infringement should we ban both? Or just the configuration file (which does not in itself infringe copyright)?? Making distinctions like this is dangerous, and allowing speech to be suppressed by corporate interests is a worrying trend.

vlunkr 12y ago
I can't say where the line is, but popcorn time seems to be in a different category than torrent clients, etc. in that popcorn time just gives you a list of copyright protected movies in its interface. With a torrent, you have to get a seed file elsewhere which could potentially be anything. It could be dangerous though, to start banning tools like this without defining a difference. That's why this is troubling, because in this case, a DCMA makes no sense but they did it anyway.
- sarahj 12y ago
  I'll extend my hypothetical. Lets say there are two groups. One group builds a generic media client - under the guise of better delivery of free educational videos (MIT lectures etc.) The other group sets up "Movie Copyright Watch" and publishes an up-to-date list of movie torrents - under the guise of occasionally reporting this list back to MPAA and the like. Now lets say team A decide to adopt the same configuration format as team B uses to publish the list. Neither team has done anything wrong and the resulting application is capable of infringing copyright - and is essentially equivalent to what popcorn time has. What is the difference? Tools are tools - it is crazy to ban knives because you can stab people with them.
  - SCHiM 12y ago
    "it is crazy to ban knives because you can stab people with them." That's true when looking at kitchen knifes, but to stretch your analogy: popcorn time is to other media applications as GI Joe's Combat knife is to other knives. It's not made to butter your bread: it's made to stab people. Popcorn time was made specifically to infringe, that's not to say that the copyright system is not hopelessly broken, but imo this is a legitimate takedown notice.
    - vlunkr 12y ago
      Yes, it's a similar to gun control arguments. Some guns are more for self-defense, or hunting animals, other guns, like assault rifles, are designed for war. The reason I said a DCMA takedown doesn't make sense is because they are usually to take down actual media, like a youtube video, not the source code to a tool. But I think they didn't really have options and wanted it done quickly.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
        > But I think they didn't really have options and wanted it done quickly. So we live in a world where laws don't matter, only expediency in pursuit of the goals of the copyright cartels?
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        > Yes, it's a similar to gun control arguments. Some guns are more for self-defense, or hunting animals, other guns, like assault rifles, are designed for war. This is actually a surprisingly good analogy. People want to ban "guns that can kill people" but revolvers and hunting rifles are no less capable of killing people than an AR-15, so instead they ban "guns that look scary" regardless that they use the same bullets, have the same rate of fire, etc. Look up how an "assault rifle" is defined, it's hilarious. It's exactly the same problem here. The technical architecture of Popcorn Time could just as well be used as a YouTube competitor as to pirate Hollywood movies. You want to ban the second and not the first but they're really the same piece of software.
superuser2 12y ago
>Maybe we can skirt by with the general purpose nature of the above tools...so what about tools used to facilitate penetration testing (which can also be used for computer crime) - should we get rid of that source code too? Germany made all "hacker tools" illegal to posses in 2007. http://makezine.com/2007/08/11/the-hacker-tool-law-in-ef/ http://makezine.com/2007/08/11/the-hacker-tool-law-in-ef/
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- _jomo 12y ago
  The actual law (1) says that it is illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that has the purpose of making it possible to gain access to data (2) which is not meant for you and is accessible only via 'access security'. It is also illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that is intended for performing a such crime. 1: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html 2: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202a.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202a.html
BoppreH 12y ago
With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser. Also, they are meant to be used that way. When people recommend those applications to friends and relatives they are meant to be used for copyright infringement. I'm not agreeing with what was done here, but there is a qualitative difference between a torrent client, media player, etc, and the popcorn time applications. Edit: yes, you can hit a movie streaming service with your web browser by navigating to a URL. Have a cookie. But that requires previous external data and thus is not "clean" install.
- cheald 12y ago
  > With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser. Sure you can. Click 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/ Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!
  - chc 12y ago
    There is no mainstream browser that automatically directs the user to a list like /r/fullmoviesonyoutube. A browser is a generic tool that can be made to visit infringing content, but does not itself encourage the user to do so. If there really were no difference between Popcorn Time and a browser, nobody would have used Popcorn Time, because 100% of its users already had browsers.
    - devcpp 12y ago
      What if Popcorn Time made the user click a button 100 times before granting full access? Is that enough effort? Or if a link was proposed 2 clicks away from the homepage of a major browser? Is that too little effort? Where do we draw the line? I guess we don't, since the DMCA's scope is so large.
      - chc 12y ago
        If the primary purpose of the app were still infringement but you had to click a button 100 times to use the app, the primary purpose of the app would still be infringement.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
baddox 12y ago
> So by this logic That's just it. The IP system (and more generally, the entire legal system) isn't based on logic. If you upset the people with political power, you'll find that your actions are "illegal." That's the real spirit of IP law: it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  "it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies." Demonstrably untrue. See "Google / continued existence of" for a case in point.
  - baddox 12y ago
    I should have clarified that it only applies to individuals, or organizations without much political power of their own.
- api 12y ago
  The real spirit of IP law is "art, music, and creative professions should be viable professions for which people can actually get paid." Whether it accomplishes that is debatable at times, and it's certainly misused, but that's why it exists. "Information wants to be free" is a terrible argument from the naturalistic fallacy. Cars want to break down, your body wants to get cancer, and ebola wants to spread. The question is whether information having to be free is good for us. If your profession is at all related to the production of information -- art, code, anything -- then you should be very skeptical of this meme. If all information is free, your salary is $0 unless you are making content for indirect monetization -- which means propaganda, surveillance based marketing, etc. A world where information is free is a world where only content with an indirect manipulative agenda gets financed and where the value of intellectual labor is subject to extreme downward pressure. Piracy isn't a liberal, liberating thing... it's akin to union-busting and other forms of aggressive labor devaluation. It benefits ultra-capitalists who own large channels of communication and want to be able to monetize content and user behavior without paying for its creation.
  - baddox 12y ago
alexqgb 12y ago
"So by this logic...the source code for any web browser, torrent client, media player etc. etc. should be subject to these notices because they can be used to infringe copyright?" No. And as the complaint makes clear, it is not being filed in response to potential infringement, but clearly demonstrable instances of actual infringement. Big, big difference.
- sarahj 12y ago
  Please tell me what part of the source code infringed copyright? The statement calls out instances of the running application infringing copyright. Nowhere does it say the source code was infringing copyright (and I am not sure how source code could unless it was either stolen or had the lyrics to "A Whole New World" in one of the comments.) Which means the DCMA notice was targeting a tool of potential infringement not infringement itself.
  - chc 12y ago
    Why do you keep saying "potential infringement"? Are you actually so unaware of the details of this situation that you are unsure whether anybody watched content through Popcorn Time without authorization from the copyright holder? There have been users in HN comment threads who admitted to doing so, so you can set your mind at ease that there was actual, non-potential infringement here.
  - alexqgb 12y ago
    "Please tell me what part of the source code infringed copyright?" Judging from your question, your confusion about why this is illegal stems from two problems: you're unclear on both the law in general and the charges in particular. In this case, there is no complaint that the code has been improperly copied from someone else. Indeed, the code may well be an original work, freely distributed by its author, and being used in full accordance with his wishes. However, copyright law covers more than that. Here, the complaint is that the code exists principally and primarily to violate the law, which is a violation in its own right. In this regard, publishing it is a bit like distributing sawn-off shotguns, which are generally illegal regardless of what's being done with them.
tinalumfoil 12y ago
The Big Difference between Popcorn Time and Chrome or Bit torrent is that while Chrome and Bit torrent are can be made to do illegal things such as pirate movies, Popcorn Time is explicitly made with the intention of illegally pirating movies. The screenshots provided basically show that Popcorn Time is not just an app for legally playing content. It would be very difficult to argue to a judge "This app was not designed for the purpose of pirating movies" when these screenshots are right next to him/her. Now let's say Popcorn Time has a configuration file that, by default, just happens to point to sources with illegal content. The question (which I don't have the answer to) is is Popcorn Time responsible for that configuration file? Would Google be responsible if a button on Chrome just happened to point to child porn which they don't control? Would, "It is the responsibility of our users not to download illegal content. If they don't want to view child pornography they can disable the clearly marked button in their settings or just not click it" suffice? I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the answer. > Making distinctions like this is dangerous, and allowing speech to be suppressed by corporate interests is a worrying trend. Why does everything have to be a free speech issue nowadays? If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, not stopping it from being enforced. EDIT: From the DMCA: > No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
- api 12y ago
  It's sort of like making an armor piercing bullet and arguing that it's for hunting. Sure you could hunt with it, but it'd be kind of pointless unless there are deer wearing kevlar.
- 12y ago

by sarahj 12y ago

vlunkr 12y ago

I can't say where the line is, but popcorn time seems to be in a different category than torrent clients, etc. in that popcorn time just gives you a list of copyright protected movies in its interface. With a torrent, you have to get a seed file elsewhere which could potentially be anything. It could be dangerous though, to start banning tools like this without defining a difference. That's why this is troubling, because in this case, a DCMA makes no sense but they did it anyway.

sarahj 12y ago
I'll extend my hypothetical. Lets say there are two groups. One group builds a generic media client - under the guise of better delivery of free educational videos (MIT lectures etc.) The other group sets up "Movie Copyright Watch" and publishes an up-to-date list of movie torrents - under the guise of occasionally reporting this list back to MPAA and the like. Now lets say team A decide to adopt the same configuration format as team B uses to publish the list. Neither team has done anything wrong and the resulting application is capable of infringing copyright - and is essentially equivalent to what popcorn time has. What is the difference? Tools are tools - it is crazy to ban knives because you can stab people with them.
- SCHiM 12y ago
  "it is crazy to ban knives because you can stab people with them." That's true when looking at kitchen knifes, but to stretch your analogy: popcorn time is to other media applications as GI Joe's Combat knife is to other knives. It's not made to butter your bread: it's made to stab people. Popcorn time was made specifically to infringe, that's not to say that the copyright system is not hopelessly broken, but imo this is a legitimate takedown notice.
  - vlunkr 12y ago
    Yes, it's a similar to gun control arguments. Some guns are more for self-defense, or hunting animals, other guns, like assault rifles, are designed for war. The reason I said a DCMA takedown doesn't make sense is because they are usually to take down actual media, like a youtube video, not the source code to a tool. But I think they didn't really have options and wanted it done quickly.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
      > But I think they didn't really have options and wanted it done quickly. So we live in a world where laws don't matter, only expediency in pursuit of the goals of the copyright cartels?
    - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
      > Yes, it's a similar to gun control arguments. Some guns are more for self-defense, or hunting animals, other guns, like assault rifles, are designed for war. This is actually a surprisingly good analogy. People want to ban "guns that can kill people" but revolvers and hunting rifles are no less capable of killing people than an AR-15, so instead they ban "guns that look scary" regardless that they use the same bullets, have the same rate of fire, etc. Look up how an "assault rifle" is defined, it's hilarious. It's exactly the same problem here. The technical architecture of Popcorn Time could just as well be used as a YouTube competitor as to pirate Hollywood movies. You want to ban the second and not the first but they're really the same piece of software.

superuser2 12y ago

>Maybe we can skirt by with the general purpose nature of the above tools...so what about tools used to facilitate penetration testing (which can also be used for computer crime) - should we get rid of that source code too? Germany made all "hacker tools" illegal to posses in 2007. http://makezine.com/2007/08/11/the-hacker-tool-law-in-ef/ http://makezine.com/2007/08/11/the-hacker-tool-law-in-ef/

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
_jomo 12y ago
The actual law (1) says that it is illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that has the purpose of making it possible to gain access to data (2) which is not meant for you and is accessible only via 'access security'. It is also illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that is intended for performing a such crime. 1: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html 2: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202a.html http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202a.html

BoppreH 12y ago

With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser. Also, they are meant to be used that way. When people recommend those applications to friends and relatives they are meant to be used for copyright infringement. I'm not agreeing with what was done here, but there is a qualitative difference between a torrent client, media player, etc, and the popcorn time applications. Edit: yes, you can hit a movie streaming service with your web browser by navigating to a URL. Have a cookie. But that requires previous external data and thus is not "clean" install.

cheald 12y ago
> With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser. Sure you can. Click 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/ https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/ Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!
- chc 12y ago
  There is no mainstream browser that automatically directs the user to a list like /r/fullmoviesonyoutube. A browser is a generic tool that can be made to visit infringing content, but does not itself encourage the user to do so. If there really were no difference between Popcorn Time and a browser, nobody would have used Popcorn Time, because 100% of its users already had browsers.
  - devcpp 12y ago
    What if Popcorn Time made the user click a button 100 times before granting full access? Is that enough effort? Or if a link was proposed 2 clicks away from the homepage of a major browser? Is that too little effort? Where do we draw the line? I guess we don't, since the DMCA's scope is so large.
    - chc 12y ago
      If the primary purpose of the app were still infringement but you had to click a button 100 times to use the app, the primary purpose of the app would still be infringement.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

baddox 12y ago

> So by this logic That's just it. The IP system (and more generally, the entire legal system) isn't based on logic. If you upset the people with political power, you'll find that your actions are "illegal." That's the real spirit of IP law: it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies.

alexqgb 12y ago
"it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies." Demonstrably untrue. See "Google / continued existence of" for a case in point.
- baddox 12y ago
  I should have clarified that it only applies to individuals, or organizations without much political power of their own.
api 12y ago
The real spirit of IP law is "art, music, and creative professions should be viable professions for which people can actually get paid." Whether it accomplishes that is debatable at times, and it's certainly misused, but that's why it exists. "Information wants to be free" is a terrible argument from the naturalistic fallacy. Cars want to break down, your body wants to get cancer, and ebola wants to spread. The question is whether information having to be free is good for us. If your profession is at all related to the production of information -- art, code, anything -- then you should be very skeptical of this meme. If all information is free, your salary is $0 unless you are making content for indirect monetization -- which means propaganda, surveillance based marketing, etc. A world where information is free is a world where only content with an indirect manipulative agenda gets financed and where the value of intellectual labor is subject to extreme downward pressure. Piracy isn't a liberal, liberating thing... it's akin to union-busting and other forms of aggressive labor devaluation. It benefits ultra-capitalists who own large channels of communication and want to be able to monetize content and user behavior without paying for its creation.
- baddox 12y ago

alexqgb 12y ago

"So by this logic...the source code for any web browser, torrent client, media player etc. etc. should be subject to these notices because they can be used to infringe copyright?" No. And as the complaint makes clear, it is not being filed in response to potential infringement, but clearly demonstrable instances of actual infringement. Big, big difference.

sarahj 12y ago
Please tell me what part of the source code infringed copyright? The statement calls out instances of the running application infringing copyright. Nowhere does it say the source code was infringing copyright (and I am not sure how source code could unless it was either stolen or had the lyrics to "A Whole New World" in one of the comments.) Which means the DCMA notice was targeting a tool of potential infringement not infringement itself.
- chc 12y ago
  Why do you keep saying "potential infringement"? Are you actually so unaware of the details of this situation that you are unsure whether anybody watched content through Popcorn Time without authorization from the copyright holder? There have been users in HN comment threads who admitted to doing so, so you can set your mind at ease that there was actual, non-potential infringement here.
- alexqgb 12y ago
  "Please tell me what part of the source code infringed copyright?" Judging from your question, your confusion about why this is illegal stems from two problems: you're unclear on both the law in general and the charges in particular. In this case, there is no complaint that the code has been improperly copied from someone else. Indeed, the code may well be an original work, freely distributed by its author, and being used in full accordance with his wishes. However, copyright law covers more than that. Here, the complaint is that the code exists principally and primarily to violate the law, which is a violation in its own right. In this regard, publishing it is a bit like distributing sawn-off shotguns, which are generally illegal regardless of what's being done with them.

tinalumfoil 12y ago

The Big Difference between Popcorn Time and Chrome or Bit torrent is that while Chrome and Bit torrent are can be made to do illegal things such as pirate movies, Popcorn Time is explicitly made with the intention of illegally pirating movies. The screenshots provided basically show that Popcorn Time is not just an app for legally playing content. It would be very difficult to argue to a judge "This app was not designed for the purpose of pirating movies" when these screenshots are right next to him/her. Now let's say Popcorn Time has a configuration file that, by default, just happens to point to sources with illegal content. The question (which I don't have the answer to) is is Popcorn Time responsible for that configuration file? Would Google be responsible if a button on Chrome just happened to point to child porn which they don't control? Would, "It is the responsibility of our users not to download illegal content. If they don't want to view child pornography they can disable the clearly marked button in their settings or just not click it" suffice? I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the answer. > Making distinctions like this is dangerous, and allowing speech to be suppressed by corporate interests is a worrying trend. Why does everything have to be a free speech issue nowadays? If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, not stopping it from being enforced. EDIT: From the DMCA: > No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

api 12y ago
It's sort of like making an armor piercing bullet and arguing that it's for hunting. Sure you could hunt with it, but it'd be kind of pointless unless there are deer wearing kevlar.
12y ago