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

DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 111 posts

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#51

Post by baddox »

sarahj wrote: post #14

> 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 r…

> 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.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#52

Post by alexqgb »

sarahj wrote: post #14

> 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 r…

"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.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#53

Post by cheald »

It's sad that there isn't a studio exec out there who can make the leap to realize that there is a impedance mismatch in the market that they can capitalize on. Netflix resoundingly proved that there is an appetite for streaming movies and TV, and the studios' response has been to...withhold content, and when they do license it, to do so at enormously exorbitant rates. Do they actually think that if they just make it difficult to stream that people are going to be content to go back to buying DVDs at $25/pop, or driving to rental stores to rent a DVD that you have to return the next day?

There's a huge vacuum in the market ready to be filled. The first mover to start making new-release movies available for streaming at decent rates (Hint: $20 for a digital movie that has effectively zero marginal manufacturing cost is not a decent rate in this day and age) is going to need an aircraft carrier to carry all their cash. Killing Popcorn Time, etc isn't going to kill the market desire. People are still going to stream stuff, and the genie is out of the bottle - there's no returning to the mid-90s distribution model, no matter how much some crusty old suits want to.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#54

Post by alexqgb »

baddox wrote: post #51
sarahj wrote: post #14

> 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 r…

> 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.

"it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies."

Demonstrably untrue. See "Google / continued existence of" for a case in point.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#55

Post by andrewguenther »

aqme28 wrote: post #50
BoppreH wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 playe…

Google "[moviename] streaming". Click a link, hit play.

Bad or fake link, go back, click link, hit play, repeat until you give up.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#56

Post by chc »

cheald wrote: post #38
BoppreH wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 playe…

> 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/ Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!

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.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#57

Post by nvk »

buro9 wrote: post #35
nvk wrote: post #24

And it's back http://blog.popcorn-time.se/

Is that real? On the main domain: http://popcorn-time.se/ > Our user's safety comes first!! Therefore we added a free Built-in VPN so you can use Popcorn Time ANONYMOUSLY! Have they really built in a VPN? How would one know it is operating? Does the VPN re-route all traffic? If so, how isn't that malware?

I haven't check the src, but its very easy to just use SOCKS to redirect app specific traffic.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#58

Post by sarahj »

alexqgb wrote: post #52
sarahj wrote: post #14

> 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 r…

"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.

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.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#59

Post by BoppreH »

cheald wrote: post #38
BoppreH wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 playe…

> 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/ Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!

Where did that URL come from? That's what I meant by "clean install". You can really get from zero to copyright violation in three clicks and no external knowledge by using those applications.

Re: DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

#60

Post by saganus »

eli wrote: post #39
saganus wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe Github does not want to have to deal with the fallout of not complying, even if the DMCA notice is not technically correct (i.e. the tool is not infringing anything, it's the use of the tool that allows you to do so). I would rather fight the takedown notice, as this will potentially turn into a slippery slope (moreso than now), but then again i don't own Github. So basically I'm guessing it's a matter of "cost…

Tools designed to circumvent copyright are illegal too.

Ah. Good point. This is under the DMCA act? I guess the problem then becomes defining what exactly constitutes a tool that aids in infringement.

A debugger is potentially a tool that can be used to circumvent copyright (let's say, by means of bypassing a very weak protection scheme). But it's obviously not only for this case, so you might argue that if the tool's sole purpose is to circumvent copyright it would have a leg to stand on.

But what happens when this tool can also be used for something else? Like someone said elsewhere in this thread, what if the tool is changed such that it could be used to stream movies from, let's say, remote places (you go to your cabin in the woods and stream your legally owned movies, directly from your house, but also from your office, from your parents' house, etc), but it's only one config file away from streaming illegal content from torrents.

Then what? Is the tool at fault here? or is the configuration at fault? And these are honest questions I really can't even begin to try to answer, but I guess the point still stands that making this law able to take down tools is a slipery slope to say the least.

Edit: Typos

Post reply on HN