GitHub Reinstates Popcorn Time Code Despite MPA ‘Threat’

https://passivetech.com/2020/05/20/github-reinstates-popcorn-time-code-despite-mpa-threat/

by panny • 6 years ago

178 40 6 years ago

panny• 6 years ago

I realize this is old news. I just wanted to point out github reinstated popcorn time in 15 days. There's a much better case to be made against popcorn time than there is for youtube-dl, so I fully expect github to be reinstating youtube-dl as soon as they file counter claim.

sundarurfriend• 6 years ago

old news

It's from May 2020, for anyone else wondering if this was pre-Microsoft acquisition - it wasn't.

DoofusOfDeath• 6 years ago

I'm not really a conspiracy theorist, but I'm curious about a legal aspect to this...

Would it be lawful for Microsoft and RIAA to coordinate a DMCA skirmish entirely as a PR move?

IIUC, you can't do that with an actual, legal trial. (I'm not clear if it's actually illegal to do so, or if it just makes judges angry.)

I'm talking about Microsoft and RIAA hitting each other with DMCA takedown notices and counter-claims, but stopping short of actually filing suit.

rmrfstar• 6 years ago

Here's an accurate summary of the legal profession:

"But most of all, the legal profession has failed. Democratic governance depends upon responsible individuals throughout the entire system who understand and uphold the law, not who understand and exploit it. On average, lawyers have become so deeply corrupt that it is imperative for major changes in the profession to take place, far beyond the meek proposals already on the table. To start, the term “legal ethics,” upon which codes of conduct and licensure are nominally based, has become an oxymoron. Mossack Fonseca did not work in a vacuum—despite repeated fines and documented regulatory violations, it found allies and clients at major law firms in virtually every nation. If the industry’s shattered economics were not already evidence enough, there is now no denying that lawyers can no longer be permitted to regulate one another. It simply doesn’t work. Those able to pay the most can always find a lawyer to serve their ends, whether that lawyer is at Mossack Fonseca or another firm of which we remain unaware. What about the rest of society?" [1]

[1] https://www.icij.org/investigations/panama-papers/20160506-j...

naveen99• 6 years ago

all accused are allowed even provided lawyers.

judge20202• 6 years ago

GitHub isn't siding with anyone here. They're not increasing liability to protect Popcorn Time, they're only following regular counter-notice procedure by reinstating the repositories after 15 days of the MPAA not filing a lawsuit against the owners of Popcorn Time[0,1]. This procedure will also happen with youtube-dl if they decide to counter-notice.

0: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-....

1: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0...

eli3• 6 years ago

No because the RIAA letter wasn’t a takedown notice

judge20202• 6 years ago

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-2...

and in plain violation of Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 17 U.S.C. §1201.

Doesn’t mean it’s legally valid, just that the service provider must take it down until they receive a counter.

rndgermandude2• 6 years ago

The RIAA letter was a takedown notice, tho from the looks of it a rather frivolous one.

They used a DMCA (17 U.S. Code § 512) takedown notice not to complain about infringing content but to complain about "circumvention" (17 U.S. Code § 1201). This is probably outside of the scope of DMCA notices, but courts often rule like common people would not expect (shout-out to Google vs Oracle).

Github then followed the letter of the law (and case law and jurisprudence) and processed the takedown request without looking into the merit, just making sure the notice had the required elements under the DMCA. Doing anything else would potentially open up Github to liability.

Now it's up to yt-dl to file a counter-notice, pointing out that the RIAA members do not actually own any copyright to the code itself (and maybe also state that yt-dl is not "primarily" a "circumvention" software according to 17 U.S. Code § 1201), and see what happens.

RIAA can then file a lawsuit, which at this point they would probably win just because they can throw more money at it. Hurray for the US civil law legal system, where the richer party almost always wins.

cesarb• 6 years ago

This procedure will also happen with youtube-dl if they decide to counter-notice.

They might decide not to counter-notice, because there's a big trap in the DMCA counter-notice: as far as I know, for a DMCA counter-notice to be valid, the one doing the counter-notice must agree to be bound to the jurisdiction of an USA court. If the youtube-dl author is not from the USA (I think he's from the EU), that would expose him to legal risk.

(As a non-USA person, to me this is the most evil part of the DMCA take-down system: even a defective DMCA notice leads to a dilemma, either you keep the content offline, or you risk being sued in a foreign jurisdiction you have no control over. This is also why I believe one should always prefer to host in one's own country, so that any dispute can be resolved by the local courts.)

phendrenad2• 6 years ago

IANAL, but I suspect that if this were ever tested in court, the court would instead find that the DMCA counter-claim functionality isn't available to non-citizens, which may actually be worse.

crazygringo• 6 years ago

I'm curious... what if the author created an LLC in their home country, and assigned IP to that?

Is there any reason why that wouldn't fully protect them from legal risk if they wanted to visit the US personally?

(Though I would guess you probably can't do that retroactively.)

naivedevops2• 6 years ago

Since the code is in the public domain, I was wondering if I could fill a counter-notice myself claiming ownership of the code. If several people residing out of the US filled counter-notices, it would make it really hard for the RIAA to do anything.

katzgrau• 6 years ago

"The code is 100 % ours and do not contain any copyright [sic] material please check again"

Laughed at loud, especially at "please check again."

Something a developer would definitely say.

abc-xyz• 6 years ago

I wonder if they ended up giving all their private information:

So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.
Please type your full legal name below to sign this request.

(https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/d7f4a6a3aade92999d4d8696...)

And if they did, then it would be interesting to see if MPA ended up going after them. If I were youtube-dl then that would be the only thing that might stop me from writing a counter-notice.

salawat• 6 years ago

Signed, Ben Dover Jr. 44 Hereitcomesagain Court Walla Walla, Washington 99362

mpalmer• 6 years ago

Dunno if anyone from PassiveTech is in the thread, but for the love of God please do not use white text on a black background. It is an abomination.

snazz• 6 years ago

Or at least not a serif like that in that color scheme. A thicker sans-serif in white on black could work.

TT3351• 6 years ago

I had never heard of this service before today. Thanks MPA!

barrelmonkey• 6 years ago

The link posted by OP is from Passivetech which just parasites other peoples work. They literally pirated an article about piracy

Proper link: https://torrentfreak.com/github-reinstates-popcorn-time-code...

GitHub Reinstates Popcorn Time Code Despite MPA ‘Threat’

Related Stories