
Popcorntime is leaving GitHub - lalmachado
http://status.popcorntime.io/
======
buro9
I've not used popcorntime and didn't really believe it would work with a
smooth experience (and when you've got Netflix why bother?).

But this:
[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md)
... this is great marketing for popcorntime. It shows it working and giving an
experience that looks very much like Netflix.

Seems like the MPAA have given popcorntime some free marketing.

Reading the DMCA notice though, does it really apply to a repo of code?

Their argument is that it can access infringed content (but so could a web
browser, or network media player, etc) and that MGM vs Grokster means 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". But if Github can be considered the distributor of the
product (rather than just the hosting company for source code) then I'm not
sure Github have ever intended or encouraged use of the product to infringe,
or indeed whether Github have any interest in the use of code hosted in
repositories by them.

Do Github just roll over on DMCA requests? Or will they challenge ones like
this where an entity is requesting a takedown even though the code itself
contains no infringed content and Github have not encouraged use of the code
to infringe?

~~~
laoba
"and when you've got Netflix why bother?)"

Because Netflix takes forever to get the latest movies, and is filled with
terrible straight to dvd movies! :)

~~~
click170
And because Netflix contains wildly different content in different regions.

My parents use Netflix and I recently got a request from them to set them up
to access US Netflix. I didn't even know they were aware of the difference,
but they are, and they're sick of the crap that shows up on our side of the
boarder.

Not Netflix' fault, and I'm elated that they're pressing the ISP issue, but
there are valid concerns about content as well.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
Netflix adjusts to whatever region you're in, so getting "US Netflix" isn't
going to work for your parents. You're going to need to set them up with
something like www.unlocator.com which can spoof their region. Once they turn
it on it will open up a lot of titles with their existing Netflix account.

~~~
ZoF
I thought that was implied by his statement.

~~~
Patrick_Devine
I read it as they wanted a "US Netflix account" which is really no different
than having a "UK" or "Canadian" Netflix account. Netflix doesn't make the
distinction between where the account is, only where your IP address is
located. This is in contrast to a company like Amazon where purchasing
something from amazon.ca or amazon.co.uk is much different than buying from
amazon.com. I'm not sure how this effects watching Prime when you're
traveling, though, and if it's also IP based.

At any rate, I don't think the implication is obvious.

~~~
kapilvt
amz is ip biased, as is google. apple is the only content provider i've found
that works traveling abroad (minus vpns/tunnels) as they associate content to
account based on cc billing address (though they have terms to indicate
otherwise).

------
ARothfusz
I look forward to their next DMCA notice to GitHub, to take down their
takedown notice, since it contains copyrighted images.

I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to
the software infringe on the DMCA. Shouldn't they also send pictures of the
computers which are running Popcorntime to the computer manufacturers and tell
them that they are infringing for enabling Popcorntime? And pictures of the
running software to GNU for creating the compilers that compiled the code?

~~~
pwg
>I don't understand how playing an unlicensed torrent makes the source code to
the software infringe on the DMCA.

Because when all you have is a hammer, all of your problems begin to look like
nails.

The DMCA gives the MPAA a hammer to go after copyright infringement. It is
significantly easier to just apply that hammer to the hosting company of the
software to try to make the software go away than it is to apply that hammer
to the actual copyright infringement (one application vs. thousands of
applications). So they just apply the hammer to that which they can apply it.

------
mckoss
Note that github's dmca process explicitly states that takedown requests
include an oath at risk of committing criminal perjury for knowingly false
statements about copyright claims. We need to get a prosecutor to start trying
these cases and putting people in jail to curtail the dmca mills and over-
aggressive claimants.

[https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-
policy](https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy)

------
LoonyPandora
Likely as a result of the DMCA takedown request that has blocked access to
their repo:
[https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.m...](https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md)

------
ChuckMcM
Presumably Popcorntime could counter file and that would then free up Github
from responsibility under the safe harbor clause.

When I first learned about Tor and the way it worked I always figured there
would be a Tor equivalent of Github out there. The recipe for building such a
site is pretty straight forward. Add a tor:// URI to git and there ya go.

------
rdl
If GitHub didn't allow Popcorn Time to contest the DMCA notice, that's a
pretty big black mark against GitHub. It's reasonable that Popcorntime
wouldn't want to get involved in a legal dispute, but a simple "no, we own
this code and all copyright to it" should be sufficient.

That end users of popcorntime can use it to violate copyright (although it's
not a _circumvention tool_ per se) isn't Github or popcorntime's problem.

~~~
notatoad
that isn't how the DMCA works. unless github wants to become liable for
everything anybody uploads to their site, they have to take down whatever a
DMCA notice tells them to take down. Popcorntime can contest it and github can
restore the files if the takedown is ruled invalid, but until then github has
no options here. The DMCA is very much a "guilty until proven innocent"
mechanism.

~~~
rdl
Some providers don't allow free-tier customers to respond to DMCA to have
service restored. It appears from GitHub's policy, they do
([https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-
policy](https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy)).

The ideal, since notice can be email, is to notify the infringer of a DMCA
complaint and let them counter respond very quickly, to minimize any service
interruption.

There are _maximum_ response times, but no minimums. The entire process can be
turned around from notice to "dude, you have DMCA" to "oh, hell no" inside an
hour. (EDIT: Actually, this is incorrect. To do this requires various hacks,
or accepting liability as the service provider.)

The secret is usually providers actually want to get rid of their DMCA-
attracting clients for commercial/cost reasons, so they rarely are willing to
make the process of response particularly efficient.

~~~
gergles
No, there is a minimum. The content has to remain down for at least 10
_business_ days AFTER the counter is received by the hosting provider, to give
time for the purported copyright owner to go get an injunction or other
relief.

(The counter also requires disclosure of intensive amounts of personal data,
which the initial notification does not, but that's probably the smallest
problem with the DMCA system.)

See 512(g)(2) B and C of the DMCA for cites.

~~~
rdl
Ah! The times when it's gotten restored immediately involved a change in
hosting or pointing out defects in the original notice, or the hosting
provider accepting liability because the counter seemed sufficiently strong to
take a stand. I didn't remember there was an actual 10-14 day lag written into
the law.

(Thankfully, I've never been the one to actually handle DMCA issues from the
service provider side myself.)

------
jonpaul
Seems like a good opportunity to use
[Gitlab]([https://about.gitlab.com/](https://about.gitlab.com/)) and a perhaps
even a hosted Gitlab install? I know there are commercial hosted Gitlab
providers, I can't seem to recall any though - a cursory Google search isn't
returning much ATM.

~~~
fredsted
All this makes me wonder if there's a p2p form of Git based on torrents, a
"block chain" or similar where there isn't a master server to take down.

~~~
pault
My sarcasm detector is broken, so I can't tell if you're joking or not, but
git is distributed by nature. It's only centralized when we insist on putting
everything on a single host.

~~~
fredsted
Yes, you're right of course. However seems like having a master git repository
server is the best solution for using Git in teams. Especially large teams.
Like, all open source project uses something like Github or Bitbucket these
days. People aren't going to share patches via email to each other. In any
case, you need a place to share code and it's easiest when that is a server
that is owned by a single person or entity. Maybe this is where torrent tech
could be useful. Magnet links need no central authority or server running to
make a central copy accessible. There's just a group of machines running, no
central place law enforcement could focus on. When you have thousands of
machines across the world, DMCA is not practical.

~~~
pault

        > People aren't going to share patches via email to each other.
    

Why not?

------
chetanahuja
I had tried out the original popcorn client (for studying the latest
techniques of evil hackers bent on destroying the meager livelihood of movie
studios) but was only dimly aware of the open-source efforts. Looks like I
need to study this open source project for examples of similar offenses now(*
).

(* )
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect)

------
ksec
Not a lawyer and dont know much about US's law. But i record there was an
incident a long time ago about DVD Decrypter and Free Speech. The end was
something that you can't hold the source code accountable.

I thought you cant distribute, or have a binary form of program to downloads
for your users, but source code of it should be allowed.

Have I misunderstood the story or have things changed?

~~~
disastermouse
I think you misunderstood. This appears to be the case you were thinking
about:
[http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375...](http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5930508913825375010)

It found that the source code _could_ violate the DMCA even considering free
speech. The court forced him to take the DVD decryption source code down.

------
SchizoDuckie
I was just thinking about some p2p distributed git, and then I figured we
already have it:

Wouldn't it help to just publish a BitTorrent sync url somewhere and host the
bare git in that that folder so that it always updates and syncs directly to
the cloud?

[http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/](http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/)

~~~
joeyspn
Here you go...
[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain)

------
joeyspn
Gitchain to the rescue?

[https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/612530753/gitchain)

------
vova_feldman
They won the battle, but they will never win the war!

~~~
paletoy
To some extent popcorntime is self defeating. Once it become much better than
netflix in every way,maybe people won't pay for content ?

~~~
StavrosK
Then maybe the MPAA will wake up and let Netflix improve, rather than keeping
them as content-light as possible.

------
jacob_smith
I appreciate how they had to utilize PopcornTime to get those images; are all
of those movies under their ownership?

~~~
cmiles74
I believe that is the case, those movies are under their ownership.

------
QuiteMouse
Looks like plex. I don't get the big deal.

------
maddev
Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.

~~~
eli
If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the
request. If the author of repository feels the notice is unfair, they could
send a Counter Notification which would obligate Github to put the repository
back online (and the MPAA's next step would have to be a lawsuit).

~~~
maddev
> If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the
> request.

They shouldn't want safe harbor then.

~~~
anonymousab
Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but
what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth?

It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing
copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically
feasible.

