POPCORN TIME > Torrents made simple as Netflix?! (1 Viewer)

[NewlyRetired]

Goodbye

We started Popcorn Time as a challenge to ourselves. That's our motto. That's what we stand for.

We are enormously proud of this project. It is the biggest thing we've ever achieved. And we've assembled an amazing team in the process, with people we love to work with. And to be honest, right now every single one of us has a knot in our stomachs. We love Pochoclín and everything it stands for, and we feel that we are letting our amazing contributors down. The ones who translated the app into 32 languages, some of which we weren’t even aware existed. We stand in awe at what open source community can do.

We are startup geeks, first and foremost. We read Techcrunch, Reddit and Hacker News. We got frontpaged in Hacker News twice. At the same time. We got articles on Time Magazine, Fast Company, TechCrunch, TUAW, Ars Technica, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Yahoo Finance, Gizmodo, PC Magazine and Torrent Freak, just to name a few. And we got some action on TV and Radio shows, and this doesn't even include the many interviews we had to reject due to the barrage of media attention.

And they were not chastising us. They were cheering for us. We became the underdog that would fight for the consumer. Some people we respect, some of our heroes spoke wonders of Popcorn Time, which is a lot more than what we wanted to get out of an experiment we threw together in a couple of weeks.

Popcorn Time as a project is legal. We checked. Four Times.

But, as you may know, that's rarely enough. Our huge reach gave us access to a lot of people, from newspapers to the creators of many sites and apps that had a huge global reach. We learned a lot from these people, especially that standing against an old fashioned industry has it’s own associated costs. Costs that no one should have to pay in any way, shape or form.

You know what's the best thing about Popcorn Time? That tons of people agreed in unison that the movie industry has way too many ridiculous restrictions on way too many markets. Take Argentina for example: streaming providers seem to believe that "There's Something About Mary" is a recent movie. That movie would be old enough to vote here.

The bulk of our users is not in the US. It's everywhere else. Popcorn Time got installed on every single country on Earth. Even the two that don't have internet access.

Piracy is not a people problem. It’s a service problem. A problem created by an industry that portrays innovation as a threat to their antique recipe to collect value. It seems to everyone that they just don’t care.

But people do.

We've shown that people will risk fines, lawsuits and whatever consequences that may come just to be able to watch a recent movie in slippers. Just to get the kind of experience they deserve.

And maybe, that asking nicely for a few bucks a month to watch whichever movie you want is a bit better than that.

Popcorn Time is shutting down today. Not because we ran out of energy, commitment, focus or allies. But because we need to move on with our lives.

Our experiment has put us at the doors of endless debates about piracy and copyright, legal threats and the shady machinery that makes us feel in danger for doing what we love. And that’s not a battle we want a place in.

xoxo,

Pochoclín.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

 

[mquinnjr]

Goodbye

We started Popcorn Time as a challenge to ourselves. That's our motto. That's what we stand for.

We are enormously proud of this project. It is the biggest thing we've ever achieved. And we've assembled an amazing team in the process, with people we love to work with. And to be honest, right now every single one of us has a knot in our stomachs. We love Pochoclín and everything it stands for, and we feel that we are letting our amazing contributors down. The ones who translated the app into 32 languages, some of which we weren’t even aware existed. We stand in awe at what open source community can do.

We are startup geeks, first and foremost. We read Techcrunch, Reddit and Hacker News. We got frontpaged in Hacker News twice. At the same time. We got articles on Time Magazine, Fast Company, TechCrunch, TUAW, Ars Technica, Washington Post, Huffington Post, Yahoo Finance, Gizmodo, PC Magazine and Torrent Freak, just to name a few. And we got some action on TV and Radio shows, and this doesn't even include the many interviews we had to reject due to the barrage of media attention.

And they were not chastising us. They were cheering for us. We became the underdog that would fight for the consumer. Some people we respect, some of our heroes spoke wonders of Popcorn Time, which is a lot more than what we wanted to get out of an experiment we threw together in a couple of weeks.

Popcorn Time as a project is legal. We checked. Four Times.

But, as you may know, that's rarely enough. Our huge reach gave us access to a lot of people, from newspapers to the creators of many sites and apps that had a huge global reach. We learned a lot from these people, especially that standing against an old fashioned industry has it’s own associated costs. Costs that no one should have to pay in any way, shape or form.

You know what's the best thing about Popcorn Time? That tons of people agreed in unison that the movie industry has way too many ridiculous restrictions on way too many markets. Take Argentina for example: streaming providers seem to believe that "There's Something About Mary" is a recent movie. That movie would be old enough to vote here.

The bulk of our users is not in the US. It's everywhere else. Popcorn Time got installed on every single country on Earth. Even the two that don't have internet access.

Piracy is not a people problem. It’s a service problem. A problem created by an industry that portrays innovation as a threat to their antique recipe to collect value. It seems to everyone that they just don’t care.

But people do.

We've shown that people will risk fines, lawsuits and whatever consequences that may come just to be able to watch a recent movie in slippers. Just to get the kind of experience they deserve.

And maybe, that asking nicely for a few bucks a month to watch whichever movie you want is a bit better than that.

Popcorn Time is shutting down today. Not because we ran out of energy, commitment, focus or allies. But because we need to move on with our lives.

Our experiment has put us at the doors of endless debates about piracy and copyright, legal threats and the shady machinery that makes us feel in danger for doing what we love. And that’s not a battle we want a place in.

xoxo,

Pochoclín.

It was a run. Used it the other night, really slick interface and worked seamlessly.

If you told me, "You can keep using this, but it's going to cost $40/month on your PC/Mac, $50 to stream to a Apple TV/Roku/WDTV Live, etc. device, and you have access to the entire library with no restrictions and it covers your rights/usage fees," I'd give you my CC immediately.

When the MPAA finds the price point (my $ values were total shots in the air guesses) and delivery method to meet in the middle, I'd think that's when services like "Popcorn Time" stop popping up.

 

[Otis]

Great work in here fellas.

 

[Johnny Rock]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit. Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

 

[drummer]

LOL at people worrying about Hollywood. They're doing just fine. Wanna know why?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0795461/

Because this kind of #### is still being made.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.

Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.

In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

 

[17seconds]

If you want free movies so badly, drop $7.95 a month on an IP proxy and learn how to use a computer

 

[cstu]

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Hollywood is doing a great job of that themselves.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

 

[Johnny Rock]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

If someone makes a movie you're considering that a monopoly? You can just go make a movie yourself if you don't like it. Regarding the above, I've already agreed that incremental advances in technology shouldn't hold others hostage and thwart innovation. Your section above pretty clearly predicted the outcome of such a policy, which is where we are today in many aspects. Why don't spend your energy fighting for that instead of trying to commingle it with an artists' right to profit from their work?

 

[Johnny Rock]

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Hollywood is doing a great job of that themselves.

I believe I'm already on record in this thread saying that the studios aren't very smart and that by making deals with the devil whereby they devalued movies down to $1.00 (RedBox) and sold streaming rights early for a pittance was their own stupidity.

 

[Todd Andrews]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

If someone makes a movie you're considering that a monopoly? You can just go make a movie yourself if you don't like it.Regarding the above, I've already agreed that incremental advances in technology shouldn't hold others hostage and thwart innovation. Your section above pretty clearly predicted the outcome of such a policy, which is where we are today in many aspects. Why don't spend your energy fighting for that instead of trying to commingle it with an artists' right to profit from their work?

The monopoly is the copyright or patent or trademark granted to the intellectual property right owner. For example, under US law (and all First World country law) the copyright owner gets a monopoly over certain rights which bundled together equal copyright: the right to copy their work, the right to distribute their work, the right to create derivative works based upon or incorporating their work, the right to perform it, etc.

 

[EYLive]

Hmmm. Now I can't get to the fire website. Damn authorities.

FBGs strikes again.

Works for me. Watched Captain Phillips and Despicable Me 2 this week.

 

[drummer]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/can-software-be-protected-from-piracy/

There is only one "fool proof and hack proof method of protecting your software against piracy": free software. (As in you can do what ever you want with it, even sell it.)

You can not steal what is freely given. Granted, that'll muck up some dinosaur companies software models, but piracy is going nowhere. Sell something you can't copy, preferably something that accompanies what you gave away free; your help for instance.

 

[Johnny Rock]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

If someone makes a movie you're considering that a monopoly? You can just go make a movie yourself if you don't like it.Regarding the above, I've already agreed that incremental advances in technology shouldn't hold others hostage and thwart innovation. Your section above pretty clearly predicted the outcome of such a policy, which is where we are today in many aspects. Why don't spend your energy fighting for that instead of trying to commingle it with an artists' right to profit from their work?

The monopoly is the copyright or patent or trademark granted to the intellectual property right owner. For example, under US law (and all First World country law) the copyright owner gets a monopoly over certain rights which bundled together equal copyright: the right to copy their work, the right to distribute their work, the right to create derivative works based upon or incorporating their work, the right to perform it, etc.

Thanks for the definition and context. I appreciate it.

 

[Maelstrom]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he is saying, but it is an interesting premise - the early cries for information freedom are now causing us to not have a way for the individual to monetize their content, while the large companies can.

I think his comparison of Kodak to Instagram is a bit of a stretch, given that one manufactured cameras while the other is a software app and social network. Someone is still making the hardware, although the film part is pretty much gone. But that's not germane to this discussion.

 

[Todd Andrews]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he is saying, but it is an interesting premise - the early cries for information freedom are now causing us to not have a way for the individual to monetize their content, while the large companies can.

I think his comparison of Kodak to Instagram is a bit of a stretch, given that one manufactured cameras while the other is a software app and social network. Someone is still making the hardware, although the film part is pretty much gone. But that's not germane to this discussion.

I dont think he meant it as a direct comparison. It is fascinating that the copyright thieves complain about the Hollywood biggies only getting richer and dont realize that while their stealing has hurt the biggies, it has really wiped out the smaller players and midsize people in the creative industries, not the big rich ones they like to think they are Robin Hooding.

 

[Otis]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/can-software-be-protected-from-piracy/

There is only one "fool proof and hack proof method of protecting your software against piracy": free software. (As in you can do what ever you want with it, even sell it.)

You can not steal what is freely given. Granted, that'll muck up some dinosaur companies software models, but piracy is going nowhere. Sell something you can't copy, preferably something that accompanies what you gave away free; your help for instance.

Really has to be the most absurd of all the absurd positions in here, right?

 

[Slapdash]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he is saying, but it is an interesting premise - the early cries for information freedom are now causing us to not have a way for the individual to monetize their content, while the large companies can.

I think his comparison of Kodak to Instagram is a bit of a stretch, given that one manufactured cameras while the other is a software app and social network. Someone is still making the hardware, although the film part is pretty much gone. But that's not germane to this discussion.

I dont think he meant it as a direct comparison. It is fascinating that the copyright thieves complain about the Hollywood biggies only getting richer and dont realize that while their stealing has hurt the biggies, it has really wiped out the smaller players and midsize people in the creative industries, not the big rich ones they like to think they are Robin Hooding.

Sure, if you find assertions backed soley by anecdotal evidence fascinating.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

If someone makes a movie you're considering that a monopoly? You can just go make a movie yourself if you don't like it.Regarding the above, I've already agreed that incremental advances in technology shouldn't hold others hostage and thwart innovation. Your section above pretty clearly predicted the outcome of such a policy, which is where we are today in many aspects. Why don't spend your energy fighting for that instead of trying to commingle it with an artists' right to profit from their work?

What if I watched your movie and was inspired such that I have a story to tell in the movie's fantasy universe with the same set of main characters? Do you favor that incremental advance in entertainment?

How about if the movie (or probably better yet a TV series) that would inspire me is locked away in someone's vault? Or is only available legally on a service that isn't an option (for whatever reason real or imagined)? How are ideas locked in a vault helping anyone?

Movies that are mindless entertainment for some are though provoking, idea generating for others. And these new ideas are not limited to entertainment.

The point of copyrights and patents is to encourage this inspiration of others. That is you receive monopoly rights (for what was a short period of time) for your film (or whatever) in order to encourage you to share your ideas with every one else. And the question is does giving you so much of a monopoly of distribution, or derivative works, etc., etc. keep your creative juices going such that you might inspire me and others while not thwarting my (and others) abilities to run with that inspiration. Seems like a pretty important question to ask to waste my time and energy on. Maybe one day "we the people" will try to answer this question.

 

[drummer]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/03/can-software-be-protected-from-piracy/

There is only one "fool proof and hack proof method of protecting your software against piracy": free software. (As in you can do what ever you want with it, even sell it.)

You can not steal what is freely given. Granted, that'll muck up some dinosaur companies software models, but piracy is going nowhere. Sell something you can't copy, preferably something that accompanies what you gave away free; your help for instance.

Really has to be the most absurd of all the absurd positions in here, right?

The whole article and conversation is about software and piracy. It's less absurd than you in this thread.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he is saying, but it is an interesting premise - the early cries for information freedom are now causing us to not have a way for the individual to monetize their content, while the large companies can.

I think his comparison of Kodak to Instagram is a bit of a stretch, given that one manufactured cameras while the other is a software app and social network. Someone is still making the hardware, although the film part is pretty much gone. But that's not germane to this discussion.

I dont think he meant it as a direct comparison. It is fascinating that the copyright thieves complain about the Hollywood biggies only getting richer and dont realize that while their stealing has hurt the biggies, it has really wiped out the smaller players and midsize people in the creative industries, not the big rich ones they like to think they are Robin Hooding.

So only those seeking rents on the creativity of others are benefiting from the current laws? And not those that are actually creative? Pretty big indictment of the state of these laws.

(Nope I didn't read the article and I understand the risk that this reply may be a gross over simplification, Oh well!)

 

[drummer]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

I don't necessarily agree with some of the things he is saying, but it is an interesting premise - the early cries for information freedom are now causing us to not have a way for the individual to monetize their content, while the large companies can.

I think his comparison of Kodak to Instagram is a bit of a stretch, given that one manufactured cameras while the other is a software app and social network. Someone is still making the hardware, although the film part is pretty much gone. But that's not germane to this discussion.

I dont think he meant it as a direct comparison. It is fascinating that the copyright thieves complain about the Hollywood biggies only getting richer and dont realize that while their stealing has hurt the biggies, it has really wiped out the smaller players and midsize people in the creative industries, not the big rich ones they like to think they are Robin Hooding.

I didn't read anything in that article about Hollywood and file sharing.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Share a song or torrent a movie, and you are helping to destroy America's middle class?

So now that I have read the article in question it seems to have absolutely nothing to do with the above statement. Instead it is an article that states we have crossed a threshold where the social contract no longer requires that technology create as many or more jobs as it displaces.

Or a great argument for a Basic Income. I'm OK with taxing IP lawyers (and the handful of others employed) and redistributing that wealth to starving artists and displaced photo developers (and everyone else left out of the "formal economy".

 

[Johnny Rock]

But making a movie, pricing it how you please and trying to make money off it needs to be protected. BFS mentioned "effectively permanent monopolies on the copyright side." While it can be debated how long a copyright on a protected work should last, surely the length of time should extend AT LEAST until the movie is ACTUALLY RELEASED, because we all know sometimes movies are pirated before that.

Why is this a given and not up for evidence based, cost-benefit analysis?

Are you saying a new movie should be released in the public domain before the copyright holder has a protected period to attempt to profit monetarily?

No, I am saying that you should be able to make a case as to why the government should care either way in addition to devoting resources required to create an exception to our national values. Why this "evil" that thwarts the free exchange of ideas is necessary. And how enforcing this "evil" is feasible.You can probably convince me and most people that it is necessary, not sure you can convince me it can feasibly done, but ultimately my point is that the idea that it is just a "given" is wrong.

Thwarting the free exchange of ideas? This isn't a TED or SXSW conference. I could care less what the government thinks. The creators deserve to make money on it as they see fit.Nobody ever accused the studios of being smart. I see counterintuitive decisions made by them all the time. Each studio thinks they're the only studio in the world and the smartest as well. Maybe events like this will help them change. The internet piece needs to be updated.

But IMO a revenue model that brings movies day and date to movie theatres, TV, retail and the internet will not be good in the long run and will devalue the product. Movie stars and Directors drive the machine. If the movies are available everywhere for cheap then movie theatres will cease to exist or will only be in the largest cities. The hamster wheel that is Late Night talk shows, movie star beach vacation photos, Entertainment Tonight, magazines, award shows, Who's Hottest threads and Hollywood romances will lose their steam. Think "Direct to Video" quality or "Made for TV" movie. It will just be like TV. It won't be special.

Copyrights and patents don't (or at least shouldn't) exist for any reason other than to promote sharing of ideas (and expressions or implementation of those ideas). Every other argument misses the point.

As for the government, the government is the source for this "entitlement" to begin with. Why-

Monoplies tho' in certain cases useful ought to be granted with caution, and guarded with strictness agst abuse. The Constitution of the U. S. has limited them to two cases, the authors of Books, and of useful inventions, in both which they are considered as a compensation for a benefit actually gained to the community as a purchase of property which the owner might otherwise withold from public use. There can be no just objection to a temporary monopoly in these cases: but it ought to be temporary, because under that limitation a sufficient recompence and encouragement may be given. The limitation is particularly proper in the case of inventions, because they grow so much out of preceding ones that there is the less merit in the authors: and because for the same reason, the discovery might be expected in a short time from other hands.Monopolies have been granted in other Countries, and by some of the States in this, on another principle, that of supporting some useful undertaking until1 experience and success should render the monopoly unnecessary, & lead to a salutary competition. . . . But grants of this sort can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all; the danger being very great that the good resulting from the operation of the monopoly, will be overbalanced by the evil effect of the precedent; and it being not impossible that the monopoly itself, in its original operation, may produce more evil than good.In all cases of monopoly, not excepting those specified in favor of authors & inventors, it would be well to reserve to the State, a right to terminate the monopoly by paying a specified and reasonable sum [to the holder.] This would guard against the public discontents resulting from the exorbitant gains of individuals, and from the inconvenient restrictions combined with them.

James Madison

And this "can be justified in very peculiar cases only, if at all " ringing endorsement is the "pro" side of the debate.

If someone makes a movie you're considering that a monopoly? You can just go make a movie yourself if you don't like it.Regarding the above, I've already agreed that incremental advances in technology shouldn't hold others hostage and thwart innovation. Your section above pretty clearly predicted the outcome of such a policy, which is where we are today in many aspects. Why don't spend your energy fighting for that instead of trying to commingle it with an artists' right to profit from their work?

What if I watched your movie and was inspired such that I have a story to tell in the movie's fantasy universe with the same set of main characters? Do you favor that incremental advance in entertainment?

How about if the movie (or probably better yet a TV series) that would inspire me is locked away in someone's vault? Or is only available legally on a service that isn't an option (for whatever reason real or imagined)? How are ideas locked in a vault helping anyone?

Movies that are mindless entertainment for some are though provoking, idea generating for others. And these new ideas are not limited to entertainment.

The point of copyrights and patents is to encourage this inspiration of others. That is you receive monopoly rights (for what was a short period of time) for your film (or whatever) in order to encourage you to share your ideas with every one else. And the question is does giving you so much of a monopoly of distribution, or derivative works, etc., etc. keep your creative juices going such that you might inspire me and others while not thwarting my (and others) abilities to run with that inspiration. Seems like a pretty important question to ask to waste my time and energy on. Maybe one day "we the people" will try to answer this question.

You have some good ideas but how do you propose the system be changed? How much time should copyright's last? It seems many in here don't believe in copyright's at all and think Otis is going to be on unemployment.You can run with your inspiration you just can't profit from it. Nobody is stopping you from writing a prequel to The Hobbit. Should you be allowed to write a Superman movie and sell the rights? Should you be able to make really nice Chicago Bears sweatshirts and sell them online and outside the stadium on game day because their name is so old?

 

[dickey moe]

Up and running...

...Chromecast support is currently undergoing alpha testing, but it's janky (based on my initial test). You can try it here:

www.time4popcorn.eu/alpha.html

 

[Sinn Fein]

update?

 

[Mr. Ected]

Not that I use the site or anything, but kicka##.so has lost the site in Somalia (.so) and has reverted to kicka##.to in The United Kingdom of Tonga.

 

[tom22406]

Biggest problem I see is that you are seeding while you are watching the movie.... I prefer using the fire on youtube. Very similar, most movies you can want and anything 720p or 1080p is great video quality.

I guess they got this site now as well or set it really on fire and never put it out.

Anybody got a new one?

 

[cstu]

http://popcorninyourbrowser.net/

New Popcorn Time.

 

[Frostillicus]

You could always just pay for movies like a grown up.

 

[Frostillicus]

### #### no one.

 

[tonydead]

lol

 

[culdeus]

Still not sure why you guys haven't found movie box. It's basically the same system and easier imo

 

[Polish Hammer]

movietube.co also works well. (Don't add an "m" at the end, either.)

 

[cosjobs]

http://popcorninyourbrowser.net/

New Popcorn Time.

That fun for about 14 hours

Watched a great film late last night, "'70"

Today...

Popcorn in Your Browser is no more. It relied on the free trial of remote torrenting service Coinado.io, which I used to stream YIFY torrents to an HTML5 video tag. This site went viral and seems to have completely overwhelmed Coinado's servers, who in turn promptly discontinued the free trial. :-) It was fun while it lasted - cheers!

 

[kupcho1]

 

[phowler13]

.

 

[cstu]

Newest Popcorn Time - https://torrents-time.com/

Attempts are already being made to shut it down.

 

[mquinnjr]

Newest Popcorn Time - https://torrents-time.com/

Attempts are already being made to shut it down.

From the site:

Built in VPN

Torrents Time also offers built in VPN, so you can enjoy complete anonymity while downloading and streaming torrents directly from your browser! Quick, easy, and risk free!

Cast to TV

Torrents Time also gives you Chromecast, Airplay and DLNA support, because we know that as much as it can be nice to watch things directly from your browser, watching them on the big screen is way better!

In Browser Torrent ClientTorrents Time downloads and streams torrents instantly, directly from your browser! Just click on the torrent and start downloading and playing it easily and in no time.

Instant Streaming

Watch video torrents instantly, directly from your browser in the best quality possible, with built in automatic subtitles in loads of languages to choose from!

Yeah, this is not going to last long. Covers all the bases, though and is impressive.

 

[Wingnut]

I bought a "jailbroken" Amazon Fire Stick on ebay for $50. Instant wireless streaming of any torrent you can think of. I dont even bother downloading movies anymore. Just search a title and pick a stream.

 

[Binky The Doormat]

I bought a "jailbroken" Amazon Fire Stick on ebay for $50. Instant wireless streaming of any torrent you can think of. I dont even bother downloading movies anymore. Just search a title and pick a stream.

Tell me more about this - is it truly plug and play? What torrent site do you use most? Anyway to know I'm not getting ripped off?

Note: I know nothing about torrents.

 

[Wingnut]

I bought a "jailbroken" Amazon Fire Stick on ebay for $50. Instant wireless streaming of any torrent you can think of. I dont even bother downloading movies anymore. Just search a title and pick a stream.

Tell me more about this - is it truly plug and play? What torrent site do you use most? Anyway to know I'm not getting ripped off?

Note: I know nothing about torrents.

Truly plug and play. Plug it in to your TV, enter your WiFi password, and start searching and watching movie, tv shows, PPVs, etc. I can take it with me when I travel and plug it into any TV with an HDMI port.

 

[tonydead]

I bought a "jailbroken" Amazon Fire Stick on ebay for $50. Instant wireless streaming of any torrent you can think of. I dont even bother downloading movies anymore. Just search a title and pick a stream.

Tell me more about this - is it truly plug and play? What torrent site do you use most? Anyway to know I'm not getting ripped off?

Note: I know nothing about torrents.

Truly plug and play. Plug it in to your TV, enter your WiFi password, and start searching and watching movie, tv shows, PPVs, etc. I can take it with me when I travel and plug it into any TV with an HDMI port.

What's the software installed that does this?

You can do the same thing with XBMC/Kodi and it doesn't have to be jailbroken (I think that's a misnomer for firesticks because they are open to third party apps) and it's free.

I'm guessing you just paid someone $25 to install Kodi for you, but, if there is a different software out there that does this I'm really interested.

 

[Wingnut]

I bought a "jailbroken" Amazon Fire Stick on ebay for $50. Instant wireless streaming of any torrent you can think of. I dont even bother downloading movies anymore. Just search a title and pick a stream.

Tell me more about this - is it truly plug and play? What torrent site do you use most? Anyway to know I'm not getting ripped off?

Note: I know nothing about torrents.

Truly plug and play. Plug it in to your TV, enter your WiFi password, and start searching and watching movie, tv shows, PPVs, etc. I can take it with me when I travel and plug it into any TV with an HDMI port.

What's the software installed that does this?

You can do the same thing with XBMC/Kodi and it doesn't have to be jailbroken (I think that's a misnomer for firesticks because they are open to third party apps) and it's free.

I'm guessing you just paid someone $25 to install Kodi for you, but, if there is a different software out there that does this I'm really interested.

Yeah pretty much. I'd rather pay than do it myself...and thats why I put jailbroken in quotes...it IS a misnomer, it's actually just software loaded into it...but search Jailbroken Fire Stick on ebay and a ton of em will pop up.

 

[Frostillicus]

Nice job, criminal.

 

[Wingnut]

Nice job, criminal.

You're in a torrent thread, jag off.

 

[Frostillicus]

Nice job, criminal.

You're in a torrent thread, jag off.

Oh, ok.

 

[tonydead]

Nice job, criminal.

You're in a torrent thread, jag off.

Oh, ok.

As far as I know the legality of watching a stream is still up to debate and interpretation if it's considered copyright infringement or not. The content providers sure think so and would like it to be, but, they have to live by the laws like the rest of us. It's virtually impossible to make a case and try it against the laws because the user doesn't download or ever posses anything. Most of the laws say that if content is supplied widely enough that it can be viewed (or read as was the case with newspaper articles in one of the only cases ever brought) without physical content ever being exchanged it is not illegal.