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

131–140 of 141 posts

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#131

Post by nitrogen »

belorn wrote: post #130
dragonwriter wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 mo…

provided that you conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; keep intact all notices stating that this License and any non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty Removing notices can be very dangerous, and should not be done without legal advice. The default way to include GPL is to also have…

Removing notices can be a crime subject to a fine: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/506#d

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#132

Post by abustamam »

coffeecodecouch wrote: post #106
kwamenum86 wrote: post #99

PS: On a sidenote, and as Torrent Freak has written about them, I must point that Time4Popcorn are pretending to be developing another version of Popcorn Time. The truth is that they are ripping some of our community work without crediting the authors. We would obviously have no concerns if they acknowledged the source of the work, as Popcorn Time is an open source project. The latest example being how they compiled…

They're concerned about Time4Popcorn crediting the work as their own, which Popcorn Time (or any pirating platform I've ever seen) doesn't do.

I can understand the logic, but no one using Popcorn time will credit the movie for being their own. No one thinks the star of Hunger Games was the developer of Popcorn Time, or the person pirating it, and no one is claiming as such.

Secondly, from my cursory glance, it seems as if T4P can/will easily spread malware, but this could just be fearmongering on Popcorn Time's end.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#133

Post by abustamam »

rwallace wrote: post #105
grabeh wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you elaborate on how big media is a 'massive net negative for the welfare of humanity'?

Two reasons. First, the destructive effects of having the media cartels lobbying for restriction of freedom in the name of protection of 'intellectual property'; those are sufficiently well known that I probably don't have to elaborate on them here. Second, modern media are junk food for the mind, exploits for security vulnerabilities in our motivation systems. It's not easy to pick up on this, because e.g. watching…

Couldn't book-reading also be similar? Both book-reading and TV-watching take the participant out of the facets of reality and immerses them into another world.

Granted, some could argue that book-reading is an intellectual activity because our brain is processing language, but I'm not so sure reading Nora Roberts could be considered an intellectual activity (nothing against Roberts, but the type of people who seem to read her book don't seem the intellectual type).

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#134

Post by pikachu_is_cool »

espadrine wrote: post #35
pikachu_is_cool wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 publi…

Sorry, I should have clarified. I meant this: "arguing parasitically that how the content creators make money is none of their business"

I was just wondering your thought process here. It seems that you think piracy is a bad thing, when I see it as a good thing. Who cares about the industry? We have more and higher quality music, software, movies, and TV than ever because of piracy. And for free! Shouldn't that be celebrated? We can now focus on spending our money on more pressing things like food, shelter and health care.

Sure, some people can't make money off of direct sales of copies but markets change. We can adapt. Just look at Chance the Rapper, he gave both albums out for free (never charged a dime) and he's rolling in dough because of features and concerts. Also I'm pretty sure he's not at the mercy of a record company, either.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#135

Post by RobAley »

sp332 wrote: post #69
RobAley wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are many more economic models than pay-at-the-point-of-use, so its not clear at all that the project would fail.

espadrine did say "work on a better way to remunerate the content creators."

He implied that was the job of the popcorn time team, it's unlikely that they could or would be able to implement or influence renumeration (beyond the influence of producing the popcorn time platform). It's also not clear that all content creators would need to be renumerated, certainly not to the level that some are today, and it's not clear that a delivery platform has or should have a direct role in the chain of consumer->artist payments.

It's a "brave new world" out there, traditional models are changing and no one really knows what the new models will look like.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#136

Post by dspillett »

habitue wrote: post #126
dspillett wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In both cases we are talking about taking what you want distributing it to others because you can irrespective of the views of the content creator(s) and other interested parties. In both cases someone is saying "how dare you do what I don't want you to do?" because they believe they have the right to control such activities and the other party either disagrees with that belief or simply doesn't care.

Yeah, and if we zoom out far enough, every crime is really about people being selfish, so really, it's all the same. The point was that he's not complaining about copyright infringement, he's complaining about attribution. Moral conclusions aside, a lot of people do confuse these two concepts, and they are in fact different concepts, and it's worth distinguishing them. That's all I was saying.

  Yeah, and if we zoom out far enough, every crime is really about people being selfish
Hence the base rule of my life philosophy is "try not to be a dick"!

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#137

Post by antihero »

mentos wrote: post #66
rrreese wrote: post #37

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?

The solution is to offer a lot more for a competitive price. Remove all barriers to user adoption, for instance, region-based airing (why would we wait 'till a show airs in the UK?), cable subscription (why would a user buy cable when they can download?), DRM (if we can get an MKV we can play anywhere, why get a shitty DRM'd file that only plays on verified TVs), spend a few ££ making OSS applications that download episodes automatically (or make streaming really good).

Basically, make a product that can actually compete with the solutions that piracy offers, from a technical and experience perspective, then price it at what people are prepared to pay.

Or you will die.

I'd be happy to trade in subscriptions to Usenet et all if there was something even several times the price of it if I knew my money was going to the authors (and even the middlemen that get it to happen, providing they are actually providing something good as opposed to being greedy and backwards).

The old business model doesn't work.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#138

Post by ewzimm »

mehrdada wrote: post #48
espadrine wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but many share a similar definition of morality. More to the point, the economics are not relative to a point of view. Their project can only succeed, as it stands, if it is used marginally. If everyone used it instead of the competition, content creators would have to change the way they work drastically, and no new content would show up on PT.

> no new content would show up on PT This does not logically follow from your argument.

We would have to look at similar areas where creators are not paid. For example, most YouTube videos are created with unpaid labor. This does not seem to affect their quantity. Quality varies, but payment does not seem to be the defining factor of quality videos.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#139

Post by mkesper »

dragonwriter wrote: post #87
nitrogen wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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 mo…

Copyright itself requires it.

Re: Popcorn Time is back

#140

Post by rkuykendall-com »

butterfi wrote: post #109

"We are totally aware of the legal implications, and we're not afraid, because we care for the people." Personally I'd be interested in hearing more about how this is helping people. I suspect there are much better things you could be doing to help people then this project. A more accurate sentence might be: "We are totally aware of the legal implications, and we're not afraid, because we're doing it for the lolz and…

The "lolz" might be more accurate, but I suspect that anybody developing for this project has no problems getting free movies without this app. It is marketed at people who find Bittorent complicated.

The most 'defendable' use-case would be an elderly, poor, sick grandmother in a country with no copyright laws who just wants to watch movies with her grandchildren or something. This might sound laughable to you, but developers for apps like this think of that as their target demographic, not all the mid-20s middle class Americans mostly using the app.

Post reply on HN