3 ms·

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 cop

by 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.
      - ObviousScience 12y ago
        "assault rifle" has a particular meaning, and generally specifies that it be capable of multi-round firing on a single trigger pull, which is a useful and meaningful distinction in weapon operation. I think you're referring to "assault weapon", which was a buzz-word for anything that scared people during the last major gun debate.
        AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        You're completely right about the definitions (and it's probably not worth getting any further into the gun control debate to argue about whether "multi-round firing" is any more harmful in practice than "pull the trigger more than once"). But it doesn't really change the point; a firearm that isn't an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is still a completely effective killing tool. There is no way to make a generic tool that can only be used for authorized purposes. The tool has no way to determine what purposes are authorized.
- chc 12y ago
  Your hypothetical isn't very much like the situation at hand, so what is it meant to reflect on or reveal? Do you want us to try a case over the Internet that looks almost nothing like the topic under discussion here and is based only on vague description?

by vlunkr 12y ago

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.
    - ObviousScience 12y ago
      "assault rifle" has a particular meaning, and generally specifies that it be capable of multi-round firing on a single trigger pull, which is a useful and meaningful distinction in weapon operation. I think you're referring to "assault weapon", which was a buzz-word for anything that scared people during the last major gun debate.
      - AnthonyMouse 12y ago
        You're completely right about the definitions (and it's probably not worth getting any further into the gun control debate to argue about whether "multi-round firing" is any more harmful in practice than "pull the trigger more than once"). But it doesn't really change the point; a firearm that isn't an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is still a completely effective killing tool. There is no way to make a generic tool that can only be used for authorized purposes. The tool has no way to determine what purposes are authorized.
chc 12y ago
Your hypothetical isn't very much like the situation at hand, so what is it meant to reflect on or reveal? Do you want us to try a case over the Internet that looks almost nothing like the topic under discussion here and is based only on vague description?