
DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn - jedberg
https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md
======
sarahj
> 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. The representative titles shown in Exhibit A
> consist of only some of the motion pictures and television programs that are
> owned or controlled by the MPAA Member Studios and that are being infringed
> via the Projects. Exhibit A is provided as a representative sample of the
> infringements being committed as a result of the operation of the Projects
> and to demonstrate the readily apparent nature of the massive infringement
> occurring via the Projects.

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.

~~~
BoppreH
With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a
copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser.

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.

~~~
cheald
> With those applications you can get from clean install to playing a
> copyrighted movie in three clicks. You don't do that with a web browser.

Sure you can.

Click 1:
[https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/](https://www.reddit.com/r/fullmoviesonyoutube/)

Click 2: Select a movie. Copyright infringement in two easy clicks!

~~~
chc
There is no mainstream browser that automatically directs the user to a list
like /r/fullmoviesonyoutube. A browser is a generic tool that can be made to
visit infringing content, but does not itself encourage the user to do so. If
there really were no difference between Popcorn Time and a browser, nobody
would have used Popcorn Time, because 100% of its users already had browsers.

~~~
devcpp
What if Popcorn Time made the user click a button 100 times before granting
full access? Is that enough effort? Or if a link was proposed 2 clicks away
from the homepage of a major browser? Is that too little effort? Where do we
draw the line? I guess we don't, since the DMCA's scope is so large.

~~~
chc
If the primary purpose of the app were still infringement but you had to click
a button 100 times to use the app, the primary purpose of the app would still
be infringement.

------
X-Istence
How is it okay for source code that enables infringement but does not infringe
itself to be taken down by a DMCA request?

The claimant in this case doesn't own any of the rights to the software yet
wants it removed anyway ...

~~~
JacobEdelman
Ummm... that's almost the main point of the DMCA. Among other things the DMCA
made it illegal to facilitate copyright theft. This has lead to several major
cases including ones where attempts have been made to have scholarly papers
censored when they papers point out holes in DRM (technologies that prevent
users from doing what they want with content).

------
cheald
It's sad that there isn't a studio exec out there who can make the leap to
realize that there is a impedance mismatch in the market that they can
capitalize on. Netflix _resoundingly_ proved that there is an appetite for
streaming movies and TV, and the studios' response has been to...withhold
content, and when they do license it, to do so at enormously exorbitant rates.
Do they actually think that if they just make it difficult to stream that
people are going to be content to go back to buying DVDs at $25/pop, or
driving to rental stores to rent a DVD that you have to return the next day?

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.

~~~
MyDogHasFleas
This is the only on-point comment so far.

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.

~~~
cheald
> 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.

~~~
rhino369
Video content already price discriminates similar to how Valve uses sales to
sell games.

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.

------
chc
Is it really even news when an app essentially dedicated to copyright
infringement is claimed to violate copyright laws? Popcorn Time isn't a
general-purpose app that happened to be used for copyright-infringing purposes
sometimes. It was designed to help people infringe copyrights by making it as
easy as possible.

~~~
hubbub
What's news is that this isn't how the DMCA is supposed to work. It's supposed
to apply to copyrighted material. Not material which when downloaded and run
will connect to a P2P network and attempt to download material, which has some
probability of being infringing.

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”
    

Unfortunately there's no way this notice will be challenged in court, so we
probably won't find out if it was legally valid or not.

~~~
rhino369
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.

------
nthitz
Github Terms state: "You may not use the Service for any illegal or
unauthorized purpose. You must not, in the use of the Service, violate any
laws in your jurisdiction (including but not limited to copyright or trademark
laws)."

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.

~~~
maxerickson
They also say _We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts
containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful,
offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or
otherwise objectionable or violates any party 's intellectual property or
these Terms of Service._

Which is a long winded "If we don't want to host something we won't."

------
jenandre
It seems to still be available from popcorntime.io in a local Stash repo:
[https://git.popcorntime.io/stash/projects](https://git.popcorntime.io/stash/projects)

~~~
randallma
The .io project is a different fork from the original project than the one
referred to by this post.

------
slucidi
No doubt this will be reinstated in a few days after the devs file their
counterclaim. IANAL, but there's no DMCA violation in the code itself. Even
though the DMCA claim was spurious, GitHub did was they were obligated to do
by taking it down for now.

------
trillcode
Wasn't popcorn time just a "tool" ? The tool is not infringing on copyrights
until the user actually runs the application.

~~~
saganus
Maybe Github does not want to have to deal with the fallout of not complying,
even if the DMCA notice is not technically correct (i.e. the tool is not
infringing anything, it's the _use_ of the tool that allows you to do so).

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?

~~~
eli
Tools designed to circumvent copyright are illegal too.

~~~
darkarmani
You mean circumvent access controls to copyrighted material. I'm not sure this
circumvents access controls, does it?

~~~
saganus
I guess until it's tested in court (and IANAL etc etc), it does kind of
circumvent it albeit indirectly.

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.

------
eli
A lot of people seem unaware of the "Anti-Circumvention" provisions of the
DMCA: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
circumvention#United_State...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-
circumvention#United_States)

It's illegal to publish tools that have "limited commercially significant
purpose or use other than to circumvent [copyright restrictions]"

------
eyeareque
Isn't source code free speech? I know 2600 spent a lot of money fighting for
their rights to post text (not even links) to DeCSS code/apps.

------
ivraatiems
Time4Popcorn's domain (or one of them) was also recently shut down, apparently
[1]. Perhaps this is part of a larger effort by the various copyright
organizations against the various Popcorn Time derivatives?

[1] [http://blog.popcorn-time.se/help-save-popcorn-time/](http://blog.popcorn-
time.se/help-save-popcorn-time/)

------
clemfromfrance
[https://twitter.com/Time4Popcorn/status/521738186834575361](https://twitter.com/Time4Popcorn/status/521738186834575361)

and they they share sources -> [http://popcorn-
time.se/source.html](http://popcorn-time.se/source.html)

------
atmosx
I get the feeling that a github clone paid in bitcoins running on tor is on
the making somewhere, somehow...

------
sanqui
See also "Popcorn Time Devs Drop Like Flies, But No One Will Talk" from April:
[https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-devs-drop-like-
flies-b...](https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-devs-drop-like-flies-but-no-
one-will-talk-140420/)

------
expose
Good luck keeping any clones from popping up in the future, especially in a
decentralized repository.

------
nvk
And it's back [http://blog.popcorn-time.se/](http://blog.popcorn-time.se/)

~~~
buro9
Is that real?

On the main domain: [http://popcorn-time.se/](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?

~~~
e12e
> Have they really built in a VPN?

Look at the source?

> How would one know it is operating?

Look at the source, and verify by sniffing your own network?

------
singold
Is the git repository blocked too? or only the github project? (I can't try it
right now)

------
nvk
It's time to decentralize source repositories.

~~~
illektr1k
If only git were good at that already...

>> 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

------
aspanda
any response form Github Inc ? i don't see any official word

~~~
jsnk
As far as I know, Github has never made any official response to DMCA take
down requests. All they do is simply making them public in this repository.
([https://github.com/github/dmca](https://github.com/github/dmca))

