DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

"I don't really see the connection you're trying to make between pro-piracy groups and massive advertising corporations."

It's simple cause and effect.

If pay-for-content business models like traditional record sales, movies, etc. are non-viable in the Internet age due to aggressive piracy, then the only viable business models are indirect monetization.

Indirect monetization means finding ways to monetize the consumer -- surveillance, manipulation, propaganda, etc.

Free (as in beer) leads directly to creepy business models. Instead of paying directly for music, movies, etc., you pay for them indirectly by allowing the distribution network to monitor everything you do and sell that information to advertisers and who knows who else.

There's a whole other level too when you get into the subject of jailed platforms and DRM -- piracy creates a powerful economic incentive to develop and aggressively deploy tools to restrict how you use your computer. Think the DMCA is draconian? Wait until your CPU will only execute code signed by a key embedded in the hardware. Abusing freedom to abuse others is one way to lose it, since after a while it leads to a perverse environment where good people who otherwise would support freedom start opposing it for legitimate reasons.

Edit:

Replying here since HN doesn't like deep discussions and limits them. "You're posting too frequently..."

I'm not making a boolean logic error because I am not engaging in boolean logic. I'm talking about the incentive structure of the market. It's analog logic-- not either-or but more-less. Does the market favor this business model more or less than that one? A market replete with piracy is one that is tilted far toward indirect business models almost to the exclusion of direct ones.

> Yes, it's a similar to gun control arguments. Some guns are more for self-defense, or hunting animals, other guns, like assault rifles, are designed for war.

This is actually a surprisingly good analogy. People want to ban "guns that can kill people" but revolvers and hunting rifles are no less capable of killing people than an AR-15, so instead they ban "guns that look scary" regardless that they use the same bullets, have the same rate of fire, etc. Look up how an "assault rifle" is defined, it's hilarious.

It's exactly the same problem here. The technical architecture of Popcorn Time could just as well be used as a YouTube competitor as to pirate Hollywood movies. You want to ban the second and not the first but they're really the same piece of software.

Your fallacy is very simple. You're saying that ¬A ⇒ B, and implying that it means that A ⇒ ¬B, with A=direct and B=indirect monetization.

The conclusion doesn't follow. There's no reason to believe that enforcing direct monetization will reduce indirect monetization, and history shows that creepy and manipulative is and was being used way before "home taping was killing music."

"As a producer of copyrighted works which are freely distributable, my paycheck is an example of that."

So if I pull your OSS archive and take it closed and found a new company based on it, you're totally okay with that?

I work on OSS too, but that's a choice. If I don't choose to release something OSS and you make a tool designed to rip me off, that's the same thing as taking your OSS project and stripping your name off and taking it closed. If I did that I'd be violating your terms and generally abusing you, which is what Popcorn Time is explicitly created to do to movie makers. It says "we don't care what you think about how you want your work to be used... we get to decide that for you."

Edit:

... and the RIAA is essentially a union. They look like buffoons because historically their understanding of technology is awful, but their stated purpose in life is to protect the income of working professionals in the recording industry. That includes but is not limited to musicians, since it takes a lot more than musicians to make a good album. Like most unions they are paranoid and reactionary, seeing any change as an attempt to devalue the labor of their members, but that's sort of what trade unions do. I know it's become fashionable to hate on unions, but look at what it's doing to the wealth distribution in this country. I think that's something that needs to be reconsidered. If the RIAA/MPAA are morons and reactionaries, then the tech industry could have stepped up and suggested a better alternative. "We ain't gonna pay you sheeeit" is not a good alternative.

Yeah, music and movie studios can be jerks, but at least they paid the artists something. The new model is to pay the artist nothing (or close to it) and monetize their work indirectly via advertising and customer surveillance.

The general attitude of tech people toward artists is disturbing. If you can program, you can fall out of bed and into a job making more than the vast majority of musicians can ever dream of making. I mean... six figure salaries are the stuff of fever dreams to most artists. They will never make what a low-skill JavaScript hacker makes right out of college. Benefits? What are those? Then you go and use your free personal time to build tools to yank the bottom out from under that industry even further? It just makes us look like a bunch of entitled, spoiled brats that get our kicks from rubbing our comparative privilege in everyone else's face.

If the DMCA doesn't apply, then the MPAA could immediately sue whoever is hosting these files for contributory copyright infringement.

The DMCA is a shield, not a weapon. Essentially, you are shielded until you get a notice of the infringing content.

But there is no legal force behind a DMCA. If you get one you can tell the company to fuck off. But you are now liable for any infringement, if proven in court.