[takasc2]

What mistifies me is the sheer callousness/arrogance of the popcorn time developers. They must know they are playing with fire in a very public way but there is no need for them to be doing so. If they were just releasing a torrent client with streaming and media managment capabilities (the interesting part of the app) they would be fine but they insist on being as provocative and explicit about their desire to violate copyright as possible. The focus on public torrents is strange as well - in 2015 public torrents are a poisoned well disaster - they can't even compete with direct download sites any more - the product they were supposed to be more secure than.

[Crito]

Why is it more moral for the developers to lie about their motivations? Surely, all else being equal, the developers being honest is a more desirable personality trait.

They could claim that it isn't just for watching pirated hollywood movies, but that would be a blatantly transparent lie. If they do not fear retribution, why should they lie?

[ikeboy]

What's wrong with public torrents? Why are direct download sites better? I usually find better speed with popular torrents than direct downloads.

Edit: yeah, I know torrents aren't good for privacy, that's why I use a website that downloads torrents for me. (Or use a server.) But I still use torrents for that. I find that direct links tend to go down much faster than torrents stop being seeded. DCMA and all that.

[neckro23]

I had the same response when Napster originally came out -- it was too arrogantly blatant, it would get smacked down ASAP.

And it did, but not before causing a significant shift in how seriously record labels approached downloadable music. Maybe something similar will happen here.