DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-07-11-MPAA.md

by jedberg • 12 years ago

81 103 12 years ago

chc7• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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.

rhino3693• 12 years ago

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.

totoroisalive• 12 years ago

Have you try it?

aspanda• 12 years ago

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

SheepSlapper• 12 years ago

https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app

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.

jsnk• 12 years ago

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)

bhuga• 12 years ago

Any repository served with a DMCA notice can file a counterclaim, as outlined in: https://help.github.com/articles/dmca-takedown-policy/#b-cou...

nthitz• 12 years ago

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.

maxerickson2• 12 years ago

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."

X-Istence• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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).

yebyen• 12 years ago

I could see a way in which the anti-circumvention provisions that prohibit any distribution of tools which enable the circumvention of access controls could be interpreted to enable action against or prohibition of PopcornTime distros.

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.

trillcode• 12 years ago

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

saganus4• 12 years ago

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?

eli3• 12 years ago

Tools designed to circumvent copyright are illegal too.

expose• 12 years ago

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

nvk3• 12 years ago

It's time to decentralize source repositories.

illektr1k• 12 years ago

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

mtrpcic• 12 years ago

The funny thing is that git wasn't built to have a centralized host, but that was the paradigm people were used to, and Github was so convenient that the paradigm stuck around. There's no reason we couldn't just `git remote add backup <VPS_ADDR>` to have a secondary host.

2ion• 12 years ago

More like not to entrust single copies of open projects to US-based companies. Even a somewhat 'respected' company as Github is just a corporate body that will bend over for anyone with business and away from anything that is Too Troublesome.

fixermark• 12 years ago

If someone wants to set up a source repository to host content that is designed to make it easy to infringe copyright, I'd be in favor of it.

Mostly so that content can live somewhere other than GitHub, which would free up their admins from having to deal with this mess.

u124556• 12 years ago

As the other replies say, git is already decentralized. What we need is a decentralized way to recognize one of those mirrors as the main one. I think gitchain: http://gitchain.org/ was supposed to solve that.

sarahj3• 12 years ago

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.

vlunkr2• 12 years ago

I can't say where the line is, but popcorn time seems to be in a different category than torrent clients, etc. in that popcorn time just gives you a list of copyright protected movies in its interface. With a torrent, you have to get a seed file elsewhere which could potentially be anything.

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.

sarahj3• 12 years ago

I'll extend my hypothetical.

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.

superuser2• 12 years ago

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?

Germany made all "hacker tools" illegal to posses in 2007.

http://makezine.com/2007/08/11/the-hacker-tool-law-in-ef/

_jomo• 12 years ago

The actual law (1) says that it is illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that has the purpose of making it possible to gain access to data (2) which is not meant for you and is accessible only via 'access security'.

It is also illegal to create (or obtain) a computer program that is intended for performing a such crime.

1: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202c.html

2: http://dejure.org/gesetze/StGB/202a.html

BoppreH2• 12 years ago

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.

cheald3• 12 years ago

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/

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

jamesaguilar2• 12 years ago

Right. This is the money sentence:

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.

Fuzzwah2• 12 years ago

I haven't installed or used popcorn time.

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.

aqme28• 12 years ago

Google "[moviename] streaming". Click a link, hit play.

baddox4• 12 years ago

So by this logic

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.

alexqgb3• 12 years ago

"it's illegal to upset powerful IP lobbies."

Demonstrably untrue. See "Google / continued existence of" for a case in point.

api5• 12 years ago

The real spirit of IP law is "art, music, and creative professions should be viable professions for which people can actually get paid."

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.

alexqgb3• 12 years ago

"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?"

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.

sarahj3• 12 years ago

Please tell me what part of the source code infringed copyright?

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.

tinalumfoil• 12 years ago

The Big Difference between Popcorn Time and Chrome or Bit torrent is that while Chrome and Bit torrent are can be made to do illegal things such as pirate movies, Popcorn Time is explicitly made with the intention of illegally pirating movies.

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.

api5• 12 years ago

It's sort of like making an armor piercing bullet and arguing that it's for hunting. Sure you could hunt with it, but it'd be kind of pointless unless there are deer wearing kevlar.

darkarmani2• 12 years ago

What technological measure is this circumventing?

AnthonyMouse4• 12 years ago

From the DMCA

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.

NoMoreNicksLeft2• 12 years ago

is explicitly made with the intention of illegally pirating movies.

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.

sanqui• 12 years ago

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...

eyeareque• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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/

nvk3• 12 years ago

And it's back http://blog.popcorn-time.se/

buro9• 12 years ago

Is that real?

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?

nvk3• 12 years ago

I haven't check the src, but its very easy to just use SOCKS to redirect app specific traffic.

e12e3• 12 years ago

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• 12 years ago

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

jenandre• 12 years ago

It seems to still be available from popcorntime.io in a local Stash repo: https://git.popcorntime.io/stash/projects

_yfoe• 12 years ago

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

slucidi• 12 years ago

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.

atmosx• 12 years ago

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

eli3• 12 years ago

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

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

cheald3• 12 years ago

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.

chc7• 12 years ago

The marginal cost of producing a copy of a movie is not the predominant factor in the actual cost of producing a copy of a movie. So I don't know why you're bringing it up.

maxerickson2• 12 years ago

I wonder if maybe they just have a good picture of their current revenue and profits and some projections that show numbers that are smaller.

After all, they are perfectly happen to make cents/viewer over on cable.

MyDogHasFleas• 12 years ago

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.

cheald3• 12 years ago

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.

rhino3693• 12 years ago

Netflix doesn't have enough revenue (and never will at current pricing) to create the vast amount of content it has access to.

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.

clemfromfrance• 12 years ago

https://twitter.com/Time4Popcorn/status/521738186834575361

and they they share sources -> http://popcorn-time.se/source.html

DMCA Takedown Notice for Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn

Related Stories