This is clear DMCA abuse, the popcorn time repository itself does not contain copyrighted content. This is why using a centralized closed source service managed by a tech conglomerate as the “hub” of our open source movement might not always be for the best
So the question really boils down to "Does the DMCA let you submit takedown notices for tools which <i>aid</i> infringement, even if the code itself is original and not an unauthorized copy of something else." IANAL, can anyone comment on whether the DMCA lets you do this?<p>It's clear from the takedown notice submitted by the MPA that (a) they are alleging that PopCornTime aids copyright infringement, not that the code itself is a copy, however the counternotice from the devs just says that (b) the code itself is original, but doesn't address that it is used and configured to scrape torrent files.<p>In short, though, I wouldn't hold my breath for PopCornTime. Napster and Limewire got taken down back in the day too for the same rationale.
As a non US citizen I own:<p>- HBO Go<p>- Youtube Premium<p>- Netflix<p>- Amazon Prime<p>However, content absolutely blows. I regularly go to cinemas, but there are not any tv shows in there. As of today I am going to cancel all of them and I know it's not much of a "blow" to their cash flow, but seriously, this is ridiculous. They kill the only platform that lets me watch content that's not available for me otherwise and that I would have gladly pay for if it was available. Popcorn time had an amazing support for streaming directly to TV, which was my main use case. I have a desktop computer in a separate room and I definitely do not plan on drilling my walls to push an HDMI cable through them. I guess it's time for Plex.
For those of you curious - you can still download Popcorn time directly on <a href="https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop</a> <a href="https://get.popcorntime.app/" rel="nofollow">https://get.popcorntime.app/</a>
I haven't used PopCornTime for a long time, as I have Netflix+HBO subscriptions, but it's time to reinstall it as a way to disobay the takedown.
This is why I regularly back up my github repos (via git clone --bare, then compress and archive). Mind you, I do nothing that even comes close to piracy, and the vast majority most of my repos are private, but it's a nightmare scenario to have your third party dictate when you have access to your source code and pop up surprises like this, whether by having some asshole try to extort you, or by the git repo having a data disaster with your repo.
Here is my guess: the people who filed the notice know it is bogus, and also know that to contest it, the PopcornTime authors would have to provide their real names and contact info, and the lawyers want that info so they can sue them for contributory copyright infringement.
So the DMCA requires identification of "material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity". It seems pretty clear that the requested content is not by itself infringing. Is anybody aware of case law on how the "subject of infringing activity" is to be read?
Popcorn Time, at least the last time I was brave enough to use it, was breathtaking. It was like having a cheat mode for TV.<p>It looked great. It had absolutely all the content one could possibly want. I’d love to know more about the creators.<p>In the end kicking that hornets nest wasn’t worth the risk of having the book thrown at us.
This has happened before: <a href="https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/722" rel="nofollow">https://lumendatabase.org/blog_entries/722</a><p>Looks like they're trying again since Github was acquired by a big corp (Microsoft).
The MPA is not even claiming copyright on any of the files in the repository; it just complaining about the "extensive copyright infringement of motion pictures and television programs that is occurring by virtue of the operation and further development of the Popcorn Time repositories".<p>Then it links some files as kind of "proof".<p>I'm not even sure what this is supposed to be.
What is PopCornTime?<p>It is the “Netflix” of pirated movies, learn more here:<p><a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time" rel="nofollow">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popcorn_Time</a>
Related:<p><i>The Hawaiian company "42 Ventures" has registered various piracy-related trademarks. The company currently owns the US word marks for YTS, Popcorn Time, and Terrarium, which it uses to target key piracy services. This recently resulted in the suspension of the Twitter account of a popular Popcorn Time fork.[0]</i><p><a href="https://torrentfreak.com/company-registers-yts-and-popcorn-time-trademarks-to-promote-legal-streaming-200407/" rel="nofollow">https://torrentfreak.com/company-registers-yts-and-popcorn-t...</a>
If you are running a torrent site with "links" (.torrent files available) it's illegal. Torrent site is not hosting any videos, just links to them. This is exactly the same with popcorn time because they have providers in their code base. In case of the torrent site interface is a website, in case of popcorn time it's an desktop application. If they would remove providers (torrent sites/trackers with illegal content) from their code then DMCA would be invalid.
by that token duckduckgo should be taken down : <a href="https://duckduckgo.com/?q=watch+movies+online+free&ia=news" rel="nofollow">https://duckduckgo.com/?q=watch+movies+online+free&ia=news</a> . This is literally the only thing I use ddg for.
<a href="http://web.archive.org/web/20190402223528/https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop/issues" rel="nofollow">http://web.archive.org/web/20190402223528/https://github.com...</a><p>Looks like this was a fork from <a href="https://github.com/butterproject/butter-desktop" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/butterproject/butter-desktop</a> which is still up
I think this is a good opportunity to assess the commutment of github (microsoft) to support free software. I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that this an abuse. I bet that the repository will become available again. IMHO the duration of the takedown is a good KPI of the trust deserved by github. More than 24 hours would be bad. Less than 4 hours would be good.
Why is the entity that posted the takedown not identified?<p>Seems like an important detail.<p>(And today I discovered there's a bittorrent utility called popcorn time)
PopCornTime is a scraper, could one argue that it does not contain DMCA materials only accesses it like a Doom client accesses a Doom server or you build your own Doom server.<p>The DMCA violation is on the Internet from servers that allow web scraping and hosts the files or P2P Torrent networks that don't store the file on the PCT software.<p>I'm not a lawyer.
Looks like they got shutdown on Twitter as well:<p><a href="https://twitter.com/popcorntimetv" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/popcorntimetv</a>
I have lost any remaining respect I had for GitHub. The whole point of git is to be decentralized and this is a great example if why that is important.
I do think it makes sense (as, well, majority of people don’t use it to get free videos about how to install Linux), but it’s very very tricky balance, and each time they’re being pushed there should be a lot of discussion and scrutiny.<p>Compare that to gun rights discussion. Apps like popcorntime are similar to assault weapons - cool tech, but not much legit legal reason for an average joe to own it. And they both make illegal activity much, much easier.<p>Note - before someone says that I equal downloading movie to killing people. I don’t, but framework of legal thinking is similar.
looks like its only the desktop version, which is available on wayback machine: <a href="https://web.archive.org/web/20200411155357/https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop" rel="nofollow">https://web.archive.org/web/20200411155357/https://github.co...</a>
Can any blockchain hold blobs and more importantly how much it will cost?<p>For example I know the Stellar blockchain can hold a small amount of text content called "memo" when making a transaction, but not sure if the "memo" field can be used _after_ a transaction is made. Probably it is a public field that can be read by anyone?<p>I was always wondering what if we start putting content into a blockchain in general.
I've changed my view radically on mass piracy since what I believed in my youth, and I no longer agree with or have any sympathy with it.<p>In the information age, most valuable labor is increasingly the creation of information. "Information wants to be free" means "labor wants to be free." In other words "I want other people's labor to be free," or "gimme free stuff and I don't care if anyone else can make a living."<p>Then there is the effect of everything being free. In the Internet media world it helped lead to surveillance capitalism, since that's the only viable business model. Another viable model is propaganda. So if you want more of those things, by all means undermine simple overt non-sketchy paid business models.
Most of the comments here seem to miss the crucial point: it doesn't matter whether the DMCA really applies here. Github is privately owned. If Microsoft wants to take down this repository (which they host for free), they are most certainly allowed to and do not even have to give a reason.