[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.

[saganus]

Ah. Good point. This is under the DMCA act? I guess the problem then becomes defining what exactly constitutes a tool that aids in infringement.

A debugger is potentially a tool that can be used to circumvent copyright (let's say, by means of bypassing a very weak protection scheme). But it's obviously not only for this case, so you might argue that if the tool's sole purpose is to circumvent copyright it would have a leg to stand on.

But what happens when this tool can also be used for something else? Like someone said elsewhere in this thread, what if the tool is changed such that it could be used to stream movies from, let's say, remote places (you go to your cabin in the woods and stream your legally owned movies, directly from your house, but also from your office, from your parents' house, etc), but it's only one config file away from streaming illegal content from torrents.

Then what? Is the tool at fault here? or is the configuration at fault? And these are honest questions I really can't even begin to try to answer, but I guess the point still stands that making this law able to take down tools is a slipery slope to say the least.

Edit: Typos

[squeaky-clean]

(2) 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.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

>A debugger is potentially a tool that can be used to circumvent copyright

IANAL, but it seems that what matters is that the tool is primarily designed for circumventing copyright, has practically no other use than to circumvent copyright, or is marketed by the manufacturer as a tool to circumvent copyright.

You can pirate things with a browser, you can crack software with a debugger or hex editor. But these aren't the primary and only purposes of these tools.

>[...] but it's only one config file away from streaming illegal content from torrents.

If it has legitimate legal uses, and the config file that allows illegal streaming isn't provided by default, nor advertised by the manufacturer, or a group that the manufacturer gives approval to, then hopefully everything will be ok.

[saganus]

Interesting assessment squeaky. Thanks!

I was unaware of this and it does seem like indeed popcorn fits this description.

And yeah, I agree with you that it will hopefully be ok if you don't do the aforementioned stuff, however I guess we can't ever be truly sure until it's tested in court.

[zevyoura]

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the section you're quoting is about breaking DRM, which PopcornTime does not do.

[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.

[e12e]

> I'm not sure this circumvents access controls, does it?

Not at all. It allows searching third party apis (including google) for torrents and subtitles, and allow watching media from a torrent.

An argument could be made that it facilitates copyright infringement -- but that is different from circumvention (that'd be stuff like DeCSS).

[eli]

I'm not sure either, but I certainly wouldn't want to find out in court. It's a pretty broadly written law.