81–90 of 141 posts
Editorialized title. I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Almost all licenses require attribution, at least at the file level.
Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You're probably thinking of this article by Marco Arment: http://www.marco.org/2012/02/25/right-vs-pragmatic
I 100% agree with this approach but what does it imply for the TV/Movie industry? To me the problem is that they cannot control distribution. So one solution could be baking adverts into the tv/movie. Has the obvious flaw of poisoning art with advertising, but if done well might work? What does everyone else see as the pragmatic solution?
Editorialized title. I enjoyed the part where they berate the other fork for "ripping off" their UI, which exists solely to facilitate piracy.
I once, in a previous incarnation as a naughty law-breaking youngster, frequented a torrent tracker that specialised in games. You should have seen the vitriol thrown around if someone dare copy someone else's copy/keygen/what-ever without giving appropriate credit... I was thrown off the site for pointing out how amusing the hypocrisy was.
In other words, I see similarities in concerns people are having on Popcorn Time and the introduction of mp3 10+ years ago. Businesses die not because of piracy, but because of lack of innovation and not meeting consumers' needs. period.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Or they could correctly argue that the existence of big media is a massive net negative for the welfare of humanity, and anything that diverts money away from the industry is good for the world. Not that piracy seems to put much of a dent in the revenues of Hollywood, unfortunately, but if it did, that would be more than adequate moral justification for supporting Popcorn Time.
Could you elaborate on how big media is a 'massive net negative for the welfare of humanity'?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not the GPL. GNU & RMS used to complain about the attribution requirement of the original BSD licences.
The GPL does require attribution. It was the advertising clause of the older BSD licenses (similar to the one used by OpenSSL) that was problematic for the GPL, because it imposed restrictions on activities not directly connected to the software. You absolutely cannot remove copyright notices from GPL software and claim credit for it.
There is nothing in the GPL that requires preserving upstream copyright notices in downstream modified versions of software, or any other form of attribution of the origin of modified versions; it does require "appropriate copyright notice", but since copyright on a derived work rests with the creator of the derivative, the modifiers copyright would appear to suffice for that for modified works. The GPL explicitly prohibits attributing modified works to the creators of the upstream work (as it requires you to include notification of your modification and a relevant date).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I 100% agree with this approach but what does it imply for the TV/Movie industry? To me the problem is that they cannot control distribution. So one solution could be baking adverts into the tv/movie. Has the obvious flaw of poisoning art with advertising, but if done well might work? What does everyone else see as the pragmatic solution?
They've definitely been baking advertisements into movies and television shows for years now. My ideal pragmatic solution would be a platform (or two, or five) that acts like a dumb pipe for content providers to license their content to, and receive some form of compensation every time it is watched, prorated into the amount of the episode/movie is actually watched. However, given the difficult licensing issues found…
Obviously, the cable/satellite/telco video companies of the world don't want to get disintermediated here; so most of them have been building IP video platforms for the last few years. It will still likely require a cable video subscription (though maybe with a slight discount as you won't need to rent a cable box.)
Some of the reactions here remind me of the time when mp3 starting to gain traction (circa ~1995). A lot of people were worried this new file format would mark the end of entertainment business: who would spend money to buy songs when they could download for free in mp3 format? I guess I don't need to point out how much money Apple has made through iTunes by selling unprotected audio tracks for the past years. In oth…
(btw I started coding on a popcorn-like but for music. Think spotify for free. https://github.com/mimoo/nodster it's here. But I'm thinking about changing the code to just converting youtube videos to mp3 instead of looking for mp3 files on google)
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
Popcorn Time doesn't pirate movies, people pirate movies.