Hacker News Reader

Comment by delluminatus | Hacker News Reader

The text of the notice states, "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"

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.

View on HN

That's ridiculous. By the same logic, that's like trying to ban DVD players because they too can technically play copyrighted material...

I could take a screenshot of their screenshot and issue a DMCA takedown request against Windows. Unfortunately, the DMCA is set up to encourage inmediate compliance with unsubstantiated claims for anyone witnout Microsoft-level legal. That doesn't mean it will stick, and I bet Popcorn Time will be back soon.

^^ This is exactly why you are supremely unqualified to understand or debate the issue. Honestly. Your comment was simply stupid.

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.

Please don't launch into personal attacks (at least not as crude as these). If you have a point to make, reason through it, post your sources, and debate properly.

It's not crude. The comment was stupid. It was ill informed, blunt and a complete lack of understanding.

I don't need a source to prove it. The comment speaks for itself.

I'm sorry you saw it that way. I think the DMCA is flawed to the point where crude requests are complied with. I would be happy to respond if you tell me what you disagree with.

No, by the same logic that's like trying to ban a DVD player that is only capable of playing illegal material.

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/

Reply on news.ycombinator.com