DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

Post by baddox » Mon, Oct 13, 2014, 9:29 PM UTC

api wrote: post #69

baddox wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The real spirit of IP law is "art, music, and creative professions should be viable professions for which people can actually get paid." Whether it accomplishes that is debatable at times, and it's certainly misused, but that's why it exists. "Information wants to be free" is a terrible argument from the naturalistic fallacy. Cars want to break down, your body wants to get cancer, and ebola wants to spread. The quest…

Post by colinbartlett » Mon, Oct 13, 2014, 9:30 PM UTC

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!

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Oct 13, 2014, 9:30 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #53

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…

Post by chc » Mon, Oct 13, 2014, 9:31 PM UTC

devcpp wrote: post #70

chc wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What if Popcorn Time made the user click a button 100 times before granting full access? Is that enough effort? Or if a link was proposed 2 clicks away from the homepage of a major browser? Is that too little effort? Where do we draw the line? I guess we don't, since the DMCA's scope is so large.

Post by maxerickson » Mon, Oct 13, 2014, 9:34 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #53

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…