DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn
github.com
github.com
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?
After all, through any of those applications, I can take a series of actions which could infringe copyright....
Maybe we can skirt by with the general purpose nature of the above tools...so what about tools used to facilitate penetration testing (which can also be used for computer crime) - should we get rid of that source code too?
I don't know the architecture of popcorn time, but if they published a generalized application which when given a configuration file (sources of infringing content etc.) would allow copyright infringement should we ban both? Or just the configuration file (which does not in itself infringe copyright)??
Making distinctions like this is dangerous, and allowing speech to be suppressed by corporate interests is a worrying trend.
It could be dangerous though, to start banning tools like this without defining a difference. That's why this is troubling, because in this case, a DCMA makes no sense but they did it anyway.
Lets say there are two groups. One group builds a generic media client - under the guise of better delivery of free educational videos (MIT lectures etc.)
The other group sets up "Movie Copyright Watch" and publishes an up-to-date list of movie torrents - under the guise of occasionally reporting this list back to MPAA and the like.
Now lets say team A decide to adopt the same configuration format as team B uses to publish the list.
Neither team has done anything wrong and the resulting application is capable of infringing copyright - and is essentially equivalent to what popcorn time has.
What is the difference? Tools are tools - it is crazy to ban knives because you can stab people with them.
That's true when looking at kitchen knifes, but to stretch your analogy: popcorn time is to other media applications as GI Joe's Combat knife is to other knives. It's not made to butter your bread: it's made to stab people.
Popcorn time was made specifically to infringe, that's not to say that the copyright system is not hopelessly broken, but imo this is a legitimate takedown notice.
The reason I said a DCMA takedown doesn't make sense is because they are usually to take down actual media, like a youtube video, not the source code to a tool. But I think they didn't really have options and wanted it done quickly.
So we live in a world where laws don't matter, only expediency in pursuit of the goals of the copyright cartels?
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.
I think you're referring to "assault weapon", which was a buzz-word for anything that scared people during the last major gun debate.
But it doesn't really change the point; a firearm that isn't an "assault rifle" or an "assault weapon" is still a completely effective killing tool.
There is no way to make a generic tool that can only be used for authorized purposes. The tool has no way to determine what purposes are authorized.
I just try to correct the language (and complain about it) when I see it used, because people picked "assault weapon" to conflate things that aren't assault rifles with assault rifles. Setting aside merits of the ban, the ban on assault rifles actually targeted a particular technology to ban. We could (in principle, I don't really want to) have a discussion about if that technology makes a difference in the effectiveness of a weapon.
The "assault weapon" ban was just meaningless cosmetic features because people felt scared. I don't necessarily agree with all the gun legislature out there, but if we're going to make it, it should at least be specific and about specific technologies rather than nebulous surface appearance.
Germany made all "hacker tools" illegal to posses in 2007.
It is also illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that is intended for performing a such crime.
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 player, etc, and the popcorn time applications.
Edit: yes, you can hit a movie streaming service with your web browser by navigating to a URL. Have a cookie. But that requires previous external data and thus is not "clean" install.
Sure you can.
Click 1: https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/
Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!
> Indeed, copyright infringement is so prevalent within the Projects that infringement plainly is their predominant use and purpose.
"Predominant use and purpose" is one of the tests for whether software is copyright-infringing under DMCA. IANAL but this looks pretty open-and-shut to me.
Of course "predominant use and purpose" eventually boils down to "I know it when I see it" [1]
In this case, that wouldn't be necessary. There may be a fine line somewhere where you could argue that a piece of software does or does not have infringement as its primary purpose. PopcornTime is not close to that line.
I can't see how the number of clicks to install it and start watching a copyrighted movie could be less than required to install a web browser and start watching a copyrighted movie.
Surely they're both: click to download -> click to run installer -> click to start watching the movie....
Like I said, I have no experience doing that in popcorn time, but I can 100% say I could do that in a browser.
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.
Demonstrably untrue. See "Google / continued existence of" for a case in point.
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 question is whether information having to be free is good for us. If your profession is at all related to the production of information -- art, code, anything -- then you should be very skeptical of this meme. If all information is free, your salary is $0 unless you are making content for indirect monetization -- which means propaganda, surveillance based marketing, etc. A world where information is free is a world where only content with an indirect manipulative agenda gets financed and where the value of intellectual labor is subject to extreme downward pressure.
Piracy isn't a liberal, liberating thing... it's akin to union-busting and other forms of aggressive labor devaluation. It benefits ultra-capitalists who own large channels of communication and want to be able to monetize content and user behavior without paying for its creation.
I think my general point is this:
In a world where energy, food, and real estate are inflating and wages are flat or deflating, it behooves us to be incredibly skeptical of any agenda or meme that devalues or takes leverage away from labor. Ask yourself "cui bono?"
"Information wants to be free" is another way of saying "I don't want to pay people for knowledge work or art." Now who wouldn't want to do that? Maybe... oh... I don't know... multi-billion-dollar companies that make money by shoveling "content" out to consumers in exchange for being able to track their every move and sell it to advertisers? If they have to pay for content, that's just a cost to them. So it behooves those industries to promote the meme that piracy is great and information should be free, since it helps to devalue the "content" that they need to keep their surveillance based marketing machines running.
I'm starting to see the purveyors of aggressive industrial-scale piracy as being analogous to the brown shirt types that used to go out and bust kneecaps of union members to intimidate them into accepting concessions. Dropping the bottom out of higher-priced content models makes producers of content more willing to accept pennies on the dollar later.
I've been skeptical of free for a while, but believe it or not the Snowden revelations really pushed me over the edge. It made it very clear that free == surveillance is the business model, and it therefore got me really thinking skeptically about the concept of free (as in beer).
I don't think it's always bad. I work on open source software. But I think it must be the creator's choice.
I'm also not a fan of the DMCA as written -- it contains some nasty and odious terms that are ripe for abuse like the "anti-circumvention" clause -- but in this case I think it's being used in the right way to shut down something that's deliberately abusive.
I never suggested that getting rid of it entirely would fix the problem.
> "Information wants to be free" is another way of saying "I don't want to pay people for knowledge work or art."
I'm not a fan of the mantra "information wants to be free," but I also don't think that opposing strict IP laws is equivalent to not wanting people to pay for knowledge or art. It might be equivalent to opposing the viability of certain business plans for monetizing IP, but there are other business plans for monetizing IP that don't rely on being subsidized by draconian and borderline orwellian IP enforcement.
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.
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."
I agree.
The question is whether information having to be free is good for us.
Eliminating copyright doesn't the information has to be free. As a producer of copyrighted works which are freely distributable, my paycheck is an example of that.
If all information is free, your salary is $0 unless you are making content for indirect monetization -- which means propaganda, surveillance based marketing, etc. A world where information is free is a world where only content with an indirect manipulative agenda gets financed
After the Sony rootkits, I don't know how anyone can still claim with a straight face that paying protects you from that.
Content producers have introduced propaganda and manipulative advertising decades before widespread copyright infringement was even possible. From Donald Duck campaigning for WWII involvement, trials with subliminal ads, decades of product placement, really, it's everywhere.
And why shouldn't it be? Why would we expect the major studios and labels who end up owning most distribution rights to forgo those extra sources of income? "Our customers pay, we're morally bound to treat them well"? Yeah, right.
It benefits ultra-capitalists who own large channels of communication
Unlike the previous model? Yeah, no capitalists in the MPAA and RIAA!
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.
EDIT: I have no idea what is this new model that you're talking about, or why do you assume I support it. If anything, it's you who are taking the side of the tech giants, since they're all reliant on copyright and patents too.
EDIT2: I make $15k/year. And I don't really care what artists think of the "tech industry". That's mostly an US thing.
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.
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.
Judging from your question, your confusion about why this is illegal stems from two problems: you're unclear on both the law in general and the charges in particular. In this case, there is no complaint that the code has been improperly copied from someone else. Indeed, the code may well be an original work, freely distributed by its author, and being used in full accordance with his wishes.
However, copyright law covers more than that. Here, the complaint is that the code exists principally and primarily to violate the law, which is a violation in its own right. In this regard, publishing it is a bit like distributing sawn-off shotguns, which are generally illegal regardless of what's being done with them.
The screenshots provided basically show that Popcorn Time is not just an app for legally playing content. It would be very difficult to argue to a judge "This app was not designed for the purpose of pirating movies" when these screenshots are right next to him/her.
Now let's say Popcorn Time has a configuration file that, by default, just happens to point to sources with illegal content. The question (which I don't have the answer to) is is Popcorn Time responsible for that configuration file? Would Google be responsible if a button on Chrome just happened to point to child porn which they don't control? Would, "It is the responsibility of our users not to download illegal content. If they don't want to view child pornography they can disable the clearly marked button in their settings or just not click it" suffice? I'm not a lawyer so I don't have the answer.
> Making distinctions like this is dangerous, and allowing speech to be suppressed by corporate interests is a worrying trend.
Why does everything have to be a free speech issue nowadays? If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing The Digital Millenium Copyright Act, not stopping it from being enforced.
EDIT:
From the DMCA:
> No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that- (A) is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; (B) has only limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title; or (C) is marketed by that person or another acting in concert with that person with that person’s knowledge for use in circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
DMCA 1201 has nothing to do with Popcorn Time. That covers DRM circumvention (and should be repealed). The theory of liability for Popcorn Time is under the Grokster ruling, if the authors are inducing copyright infringement by promoting the tool for that purpose.
The notice and takedown provision is DMCA 512, which is a safe harbor for hosts like Github. It says (roughly) that you aren't liable for copyright infringement of your users if you timely respond to take down notices. But Github wouldn't be liable for copyright infringement anyway because the Popcorn Time software is not copyrighted by the claimants and Github isn't the party allegedly inducing copyright infringement. So Github apparently doesn't have to comply with the notice if they don't want to.
Of course, almost everyone complies with all notices whatsoever regardless of how absurd or invalid they are, because the host doesn't have a strong enough incentive to fight somebody else's battle. That's the free speech issue.
As implied by other comments, this is clearly not a valid notice: it would either have to be a claim that the code itself was infringing, or that it constitutes a DRM circumvention tool (like DeCSS). Neither is the case here, as far as I can tell.
In any case, if this software is illegal under the DMCA, so would the "cp" command be -- as it can be used to make copies of copyrighted contents (note that neither tool circumvents DRM).
Intention is a quality of the author, not a quality of the work. In the real world governed by the laws of reality, an object or tool or even bundle of software has no intention. It's just a thing.
Claiming that the intention can magically transfer through the object is like some 21st century form of shamanism.
I reject such stupid notions.
If, generally speaking, this software is used to commit illegal acts, then it is those acts which are illegal, not the tool that is used in the commission of the acts.
By banning the tools, you're not preventing the illegal act... you're preventing anyone from using it for legal acts, and cementing the idea that it is only used for those things illegal.
But we're not even really talking about banning it... that would cost too much in lobbyist bribes, too much political capital, too much time and effort. Instead, we're going to twist existing laws to pretend that somehow someone else's code can be censored because of some unfounded ideas about what the code does. That's a chickenshit move if ever there was one.
> If you think not being able to share copyrighted content without the permission of the copyright holder violates the first ammendment then you should be working towards repealing
I no longer trust that our government represents its people well enough for that to be possible. And I reject the idea that you can just set me off on impossible quests and that if I refuse them you win the argument.
The claimant in this case doesn't own any of the rights to the software yet wants it removed anyway ...
You have to squint and let the screen go a bit blurry to see it, but I wouldn't count on getting a judge that sees it the other way if I was GitHub. I've always interpreted "access controls" to mean a specific "technological measure" such as CSS encryption, but in a very broad sense the law does allow for tools that don't have any particular copyrighted works in them to be considered illegal and rulings that would disallow their dissemination.
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.
After all, they are perfectly happen to make cents/viewer over on cable.
At some level both these apps are big time enablers of copyright infringement. Maybe you don't think that's a bad thing and all copyright laws should be gutted, or maybe you want to play lawyer or (worse) make analogies. That is totally not the point here.
The point is, what some view as copyright infringement, others view as unsatisfied demand. Music has already crossed the chasm, but that's probably more because there is so much more of it in such smaller economic units. Big budget movies have more mass and will find it harder to leap that chasm to streaming services.
I think that if anyone manages it, it will be Apple. And it will start with TV, not movies.
I will take issue with cheald's "marginal manufacturing cost" argument, a big budget movie has to make back its gigantic capital investment, and each unit of consumption has to pay its share.
I don't dispute that, but a the marginal cost of a digital copy is electricity + bandwidth, where as a physical copy costs materials, manufacturing labor, shipping and distribution costs, and because you can't print a physical DVD on-demand, you have to cover unsold inventory, which requires an additional capital investment which you may potentially not recoup.
Apple already sells new release movies via iTunes (I pulled the $20 number from the Edge of Tomorrow listing), but the problem is that the pricing for digital movies hasn't kept pace with consumer expectations. We buy our software and music for pennies on the dollar compared to what we used to; paying 1996 prices for digital movies isn't something anyone is in a rush to do.
Valve has found that game prices are highly elastic - you can move them all over the place and still retain roughly the same gross revenue, because you're hitting multiple brackets of consumers. Add in bonus sales that call attention to a title, and you can put revenues through the roof. If Google Play or iTunes regularly ran weekly sales on fresh content where I could get a copy of some movie for X% off this week only, I would be constantly engaged! Judging by Steam's success, the studios would see tremendously increased sales and tremendously reduced piracy. Instead, I go there only as a last resort. The distribution sucks, and the pricing sucks. It's not that I'm not willing to pay for movies - I am more than willing to - but if you ask me to pay 200% of my monthly Netflix expenditure to watch a single movie, I'm going to laugh at you and go find something to watch on Netflix.
At release: Movies are 12 bucks a person a view at the theatre. Games cost 60 bucks.
After a while: You can rent a movie for 4 bucks or buy it for 15 bucks on DVD. Games cost 30 bucks.
Year + later: It's on HBO, cable, network TV or netflix. Games cost 5-10 bucks ON SALE!
Maybe movies could be sold for super cheap after a year, but for the most part there isn't much interest in the movie.
It has so far relied on content creators treating their IP as essentially "used up" after it aired and was released on DVD. Netflix wasn't seen as a competitor but as another was to price discriminate to wring out the last drops of revenue.
But now Netflix is starting to cannibalize TV views, cable subscriptions, and DVD sales. As the revenue from traditional sources decreases either 1) nobody will make expensive content or 2) Netflix will have to pay more to make up for it.
This case actually seems relatively flimsy; and as the DMCA notice admits, it hinges on a previous ruling that
“the distribution of a product can itself give rise to liability where evidence shows that the distributor intended and encouraged the product to be used to infringe”
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.
which seems a bit wishy washy. The use of Github to host code doesn't seem to be violating any laws. The execution of the code does however. Splitting hairs no doubt, but it doesn't seem that merely hosting code that facilities copyright infringement is in itself copyright infringement. Granted if Github wants to uphold DMCA Safe Harbor they need to respond right away.
Which is a long winded "If we don't want to host something we won't."
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 of dealing with this" > "cost of kicking popcorn project out of github", no?
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
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
>A debugger is potentially a tool that can be used to circumvent copyright
IANAL, but it seems that what matters is that the tool is primarily designed for circumventing copyright, has practically no other use than to circumvent copyright, or is marketed by the manufacturer as a tool to circumvent copyright.
You can pirate things with a browser, you can crack software with a debugger or hex editor. But these aren't the primary and only purposes of these tools.
>[...] but it's only one config file away from streaming illegal content from torrents.
If it has legitimate legal uses, and the config file that allows illegal streaming isn't provided by default, nor advertised by the manufacturer, or a group that the manufacturer gives approval to, then hopefully everything will be ok.
I was unaware of this and it does seem like indeed popcorn fits this description.
And yeah, I agree with you that it will hopefully be ok if you don't do the aforementioned stuff, however I guess we can't ever be truly sure until it's tested in court.
Since the tool's main functionality is to watch copyrighted material I guess it does circumvent access controls by tapping into an illegal repository of movies with copyright already removed (e.g. torrents).
Maybe this would be akin to telling a friend to lockpick a neighbor's door so that you can go inside. You are not directly circumventing the lock in the door but are actually doing so indirectly, by asking someone else to do it for you. Kind of like breaking the spirit (intended use) of the lock. I mean, the analogy is probably full of holes but I'm just using it to illustrate the point.
Not at all. It allows searching third party apis (including google) for torrents and subtitles, and allow watching media from a torrent.
An argument could be made that it facilitates copyright infringement -- but that is different from circumvention (that'd be stuff like DeCSS).
It's illegal to publish tools that have "limited commercially significant purpose or use other than to circumvent [copyright restrictions]"
and they they share sources -> http://popcorn-time.se/source.html
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?
Look at the source?
> How would one know it is operating?
Look at the source, and verify by sniffing your own network?
>> Git is a free and open source distributed version control system designed to handle everything from small to very large projects with speed and efficiency
Mostly so that content can live somewhere other than GitHub, which would free up their admins from having to deal with this mess.
https://github.com/time4popcorn/popcorntime-desktop
https://github.com/time4popcorn/popcorntime-android
Are all unavailable, citing the DMCA request. So... that's probably Github's response.