Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Popcorn Time is back

popcorntimewar.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 141 posts

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#31

Post by espadrine »

kluivers wrote: post #22
Springtime wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy. I did find this amusing. The irony is strong with this one, although they have some valid points expanded on in the Reddit post linked. Comment from a contributor on the time4popcorn repo: I am also waiting for a reply. You guys just copy other people's work and don't even give them proper credi…

Question is: what license is that work released under (GPL3?) and does that license require attribution?

GPLv3. It doesn't require attribution, unless specified by the authors alongside the license. They didn't specify that requirement. Nothing on the Readme, no additional information on the License file, nothing in the code files.

> you may (if authorized by the copyright holders of that material) supplement the terms of this License with terms […] [r]equiring preservation of […] author attributions in that material or in the Appropriate Legal Notices displayed by works containing it

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#32

Post by girvo »

tunnuz wrote: post #4
fit2rule wrote: post #3

There's a missed opportunity here .. movie companies should be forking Popcorn Time, whacking a brand on there, and putting their own version out. What a pity the world is run by lawyers..

Netflix does this (the service, not the fork), too bad it is still unavailable in many countries.

The lack of Netflix in Australia really frustrates me. Id pay for it gladly and happily, but I can't, despite living in a first world country that has a very high amount of discretional spending (consider we pay twice what everyone else does, taking into account exchange rates, for software) and the highest rate of copyright infringement in first world countries. Sigh.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#33

Post by kevingadd »

forrestthewoods wrote: post #9
mehwoot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why?

It's about volume. Sure the movie companies will be giving away their films for free. But if you give away enough films for free it becomes profitable!!

It's obviously implied in this suggestion that they would charge... an element of Popcorn Time's appeal is that it's easy to use and works, unlike virtually every paid movie streaming/download service in existence.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#34

Post by fit2rule »

mehwoot wrote: post #7
fit2rule wrote: post #3

There's a missed opportunity here .. movie companies should be forking Popcorn Time, whacking a brand on there, and putting their own version out. What a pity the world is run by lawyers..

Why?

Control of your audience, first and foremost: the mainstay of the movie business. If you can convince someone to sit still and watch your art for up to 2 hours at a time, you've got an audience. If you can't, you've lost the audience.

Its an artistic thing - do you have access to, and can you know about, your audience? This has got to be better than not knowing and not having any control whatsoever - or worse, allowing someone else to have your audience (which is what happens with piracy).

But of course, with lawyers and accountants running the show, where they haven't quite figured out how to rate eyeballs in a spreadsheet without having $$-signs around, its no surprise that they're missing this opportunity.

Imagine if Universal embraced Popcorn Time and called their fork "Universal Popcorn Time", and modified it such that their catalog was entirely available. They'd have a real chance against the iTunes/AppStore/Netflix's of the world. Alas, they appear to be asleep at the wheel here .. even though the extremely Great features of Popcorn Time as an app are wide open and available to them ..

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#35

Post by espadrine »

pikachu_is_cool wrote: post #29
espadrine wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now, for morality to be on their side, they need to publicly advocate and work on a better way to remunerate the content creators. Of course, they could go rogue and act exclusively out of spite for big media, arguing parasitically that how the content creators make money is none of their business. But I really hope they don't.

Why?

> Why?

Why I hope they don't just stay rogue? Because having a self-sustainable, transparent industry that actually tries to protect users benefits everyone in the long-run.

Creators would accept such an industry because they could do what they love for money, and users would accept it because they would obtain entertainment while knowing where the money they spend goes, and knowing that the work will go to the public domain after a reasonable amount of time.

I know I sound like a fool; no need to tell me.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#36

Post by espadrine »

arianvanp wrote: post #17
mahyarm wrote: post #12

Next they could add chromecast support / transcoding and they have a pretty good competitor for plex. After that a couple of mobile clients?

I'm working on a fork with Chromecast support. It works pretty well. Just a bit scared to open source it. Perhaps i will release it under a pseudonym or something. It's ridicioulous that people need to be afraid to release stuff but sadly enough this is the case.

Why not submit your patch to one of the current maintainers privately? That way it won't link to you.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#37

Post by rrreese »

antihero wrote: post #21

Someone posted a really good article on the being right vs being pragmatic - about it being a service problem as opposed to an ethical one, or something like that. It'd be really handy if someone could post it.

You're probably thinking of this article by Marco Arment: http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#38

Post by ekianjo »

13hours wrote: post #19
ekianjo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> which exists solely to facilitate piracy. Let's not use the words the big majors wants people to use. The right wording is copyright infringement and that's it.

Piracy is a well known synonym for copyright infringement. I would agree with you that something like "theft" would not be a good term to use, but Piracy is spot-on.

Nope, Piracy can be used to mean a lot of things, including stealing physical goods IRL. It's certainly not the right expression to use if you ONLY mean copyright infringement.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#39

Post by RobAley »

espadrine wrote: post #26
jtreanor wrote: post #18

Popcorn Time previously just showed open domain films in the screen shots. The new one has pictures Game of Thrones and company. It looks like they have stopped pretending this is not for piracy. edit: clarification

Now, for morality to be on their side, they need to publicly advocate and work on a better way to remunerate the content creators. Of course, they could go rogue and act exclusively out of spite for big media, arguing parasitically that how the content creators make money is none of their business. But I really hope they don't.

"Morality" is self-defined. No doubt they have their interpretation of morality on their side.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#40

Post by icebraining »

peterhajas wrote: post #27
bryan_rasmussen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They made something to facilitate piracy, most probably piracy not done for profit, but did not pirate something and then put it out as their own with the intention to make a profit.

They're making an enabling technology which can solely be used for stealing. Seems like piracy to me.

It might be piracy, but it's definitively not stealing. The SCOTUS itself explained why.
Post reply on HN