Popcorntime-desktop repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown
github.com
github.com
In other words, the notice seems to be based on the idea that because copyrighted works are available through the application, the application is an appropriate target for a takedown notice, on the basis of some screenshots.
Maybe I'll issue a takedown notice for https://github.com/chromium/chromium and attach some screenshots of YouTube video listings.
Popcorn Time only sources torrents from illegal sources i.e. does not have significant non-infringing utility.
That's where the distinction comes in.
If it was similarly limited to only play legal material (or even indiscriminately play material from a source that contains both) this would never have been an issue.
I know 'MUH FREEDUMS' is pretty big around here but the fact is that this was rather blatantly illegal and takedown should be expected. Their website explicitly and exclusively shows content that they do not own: http://www.time4popcorn.eu/
The takedown request was not because the screenshots are copyrighted. That is not the infringement. If you don't understand that then you might want to read a bit more before becoming involved with the grown-ups.
I don't need a source to prove it. The comment speaks for itself.
Of course, you have never used any software that rips DVDs into video files, but if you had, it would almost definitely be based on this code, which was printed on t-shirts as a means of distribution.
Buy the way, the fact that they're "copyright" is irrelevant. Every new work, including ever Creative Commons license work is copyrighted.
The only case that could be defensible is that Popcorn Time is developed as a proof of concept and is not intended for actual use. I still don't think it would qualify because the use of Popcorn time as a way to stream movies is more "commercially significant" than any other use.
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as what the law is currently, I think you are wrong.
The takedown notice cites MGM vs Grokster [0] which held as follows:
> One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24.
That case used 3 elements to determine whether the defendant had "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement":
1. That defendant "aim[ed] to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement"
2. Did not develop filtering tools
3. That defendants had a motive (advertising revenue) to increase the use of the software
From my armchair, elements 1 and 2 seem identical to MGM vs Grokster. Popcorn Time has a plausible argument on the third element, but who knows really. This is a question to put before a federal judge.
IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.
Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.
We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry.
http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues
By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.
It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense.
It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s.
It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do.
It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information.
"Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player.
Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.
So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.
It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.
It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.
Seriously; just grow up.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-...
Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense.
As for cigarettes, consider the old ads:
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_17...
As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled).
You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.
I suppose that says it all! What a brilliant demonstration of exactly why you should be ignored.
Keep up the good work, you are a fine example of modern reasoning.
Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream.
Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs.
Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal.
Do you see how slippery the slope is?
Perhaps there is a reason for this?
If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.
Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.
As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.
A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously.
"a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.
You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?
That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.
Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...
Honestly. Grow up.
The real issue is the current state of copyright law, created from an obsolete model and then molded through intensive lobbying from the interested parties.
It was said thousands of times, and we will probably need to say it thousands of times more to get this to change.
Normally it's just a long list of URLs flagged by a bot then sent without ever having a human look at it.
Perhaps the spent some extra time making this look pretty because they anticipated a bit of scrutiny?
What other tools can you think of that can replace github and make censorship impossible?
Feel free to send me all of the proprietary data at your workplace since you care nothing about copyright. Or just post it all to Pastebin.
Correction: we should never get used to it.. what they are doing is wrong.. the transport have nothing to do with the thing being transported.. is like to destroying a road just because some truck with drugs was found using the road.. despite the road can be use to transport families in vacations.. can be, and was created with good uses in mind
Its a complete non-sense
And its only "usual", because governments are in bed with corporations.. we should never get used to this sort of situation.. it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits
If they want to fight the free distribution of the material they create.. fine.. we cant argue against that.. the law should protect their interests (puting somebody in prison for it.. definetely not)
But destroy projects that can serve for a lot of good purposes(education, indie movies, a decentralized youtube), its just madness to let them do this, and just "get used to it"
Edit: This is one of those times that you understand that governements dont work for their people best interests, but for the corporations best interest against the greater good.. this goes against all the reasons democratic institutions were created for
This rhetoric is a bit silly. Companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars making a movie, and wanting to protect their investment by not allowing free copies on the internet is not "greedy people wanting to burn the world."
You can use a knife to make food, or to kill somebody.. its the same as forbidden knifes because somebody use it with bad intentions..
Its just fight the pirated movies to be copied for free.. not the tool.. thats my main argument
Im not against their rights.. im against that they have rights to take my rights
I could take a screenshot of VLC clearly showing me watching a pirated movie. What's your point?
Here is a little fact; you are not that clever and the rest of the world is not that stupid. Save your strawman arguments. If movies are released by content creators for free they will release them via channels you can access.
if you can't access them; tough. No one said you had a right to content.
Then again, who would help the poor, embattled movie publishing houses? I hear they're barely getting by these days.
They should just admit that they like piracy, nothing wrong with that.
So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all...
"The law is wrong and archaic!"
Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron.
One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff?
Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.
Surely if they have a copyright claim to the code they can issue it, but issuing a copyright claim based on the actions of a software user is a BIG stretch to me. Has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.