Slashdot Mirror
Controversial Torrent Streaming App 'Popcorn Time' Shuts Down, Then Gets Reborn
An anonymous reader writes "A piece of software called 'Popcorn Time' drew a lot of attention last week for encapsulating movie torrents within a slick, stream-based UI that made watching pirated films as easy as firing up Netflix. The app ran into trouble a few days ago when it was pulled from its hosting provider, Mega, and now Popcorn Time's creators say they're shutting it down altogether. They say it was mainly an experiment: '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.' However, the software itself isn't a complete loss — the project is being picked up by the founder of a torrent site, and he says development will continue."
This is indeed a service problem, which I've been saying for years. I'm happy to fork over $$ to any service that lets me watch the latest episodes of my favourite TV show or a movie that has recently been released.
No stupid region codes, no stupid staggered releases to other parts of the world (yes, I am in YURP), just a reasonable price for access to the latest contest. Netflix goes a long way, but generally has older content (which, I guess, is easier to license).
I feel that I have no other option but piracy, and if a legitimate alternative would be available, I'd use it.
The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Most torrents are probably added to watch right away, so if more emphasis on getting the first part first, and watching while it is downloaded, how is this not simply a good thing.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
I'm happy to pay for...
1. timely ...movie file / TV show episode file download.
2. 1080p and/or 1080p 3D
3. portable, clean (but reasonable DRM accepted)
Nobody wants my money.
Steam is something I currently consider reasonable. I can log in anywhere and (re)download my purchases and use them freely. Sadly it's just for PC/Mac games.
Netflix is closest to usable, but they fail #1 and #3. I also grossly dislike the fact that something being on Netflix today does not guarantee it is there tomorrow. Shows and movies get yanked out all the time with no rhyme or reason. Heck, just a couple of weeks ago I decided that I'd like to re-watch Stargate. Old but popular Sci-Fi TV series that is already pretty much out of rerun circulation on the TV. Surely Netflix has it.
Nope.
Certain "Bay" that shall not be named had it in perfect set of high quality files that I can watch at any time and that nobody can take away from me tomorrow based on their whim. I would have paid for that, but nobody wanted my money. I actually tried - every single place told me my money was no good because I did not live in the US. I did not want a mountain of DVD discs on my shelf (tho I did consider buying a bunch of boxed sets but the total shipping costs and the sheer physical amount of discs and the hassle of juggling them put me off).
Wake me when the studios match at least Blu-Ray release dates with worldwide, downloadable (not streamable) high quality offerings at a price point that is less than the Blu-ray box (as Blu-rays have resale value while downloads generally do not).
Not holding my breath. Nope.
Paid for what?
The entire notion that you should be able to have a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods that infringe upon free speech and private property rights is something I believe qualifies as an "entitled asshole mentality."
Thank you Dave Raggett
Your comment completely ignores the economic situation of creators. There's a large overhead cost and a very small per-unit cost. Pirates want to pay the per-unit cost and ignore the fact that creators have the burden of paying-off the large overhead cost. Copyright (or "government enforced monopoly") is a way to balance that equation so that creators can actually get sufficiently paid for their labor. If you're going to ignore the economics of the situation, then of course you're going to arrive at ignorant opinions about copyright.
BTW, it isn't about "ideas or methods" it's about taking someone's work VERBATIM. It's disingenuous to claim it's about ideas.
I understand that people need to be able to earn a living, but we tend to create scarcity in order to create profit. Think of the cost of reproducing a film these days, or an mp3, do you think each copy is worth the fee charged for it?
It's not only the reproduction costs but it also includes the value of the hard work of the artist.
At first glance it would seem that "no one loses anything" when you make a copy of some song. But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.
I'm a mathematician. I am a "creator", paid by your taxes to produced good research ideas that are later put on arXiv.org and on my website for everyone to download. This system seems to work well, at least in our field. Just sayin'...
My first program:
Hell Segmentation fault
Or as Simpsons' Lenny would put it: "All we want is brand new, big-budget entertainment in our homes for nothing. Why doesn't Hollywood get that?"
A service problem indeed.
Everything you "own" is protected by a government enforced monopoly over that item - why are the laws which protect your stuff better than the laws which protect other peoples stuff?
No, it undermines the economic system of creation.
I agree 100%, but the Slashdot groupthink seems to be that the era of an 'economic system of creation' is over. Opinion seems to be that all content should be made free by creators ('content is just bytes and wants to be free.')
Exception seems to be paid admissions to live performances (music / theatre) as that appears to still be acceptable - Not sure how that works for people like my author-brother, though.
As long as you keep paying for it. Try not paying municipal taxes on a house you supposedly "own" and see how far you get.
But it's kind of like making fake money -- no one loses money if you print money, but in the end the value of the money decreases due to inflation. It's the same for music: if enough people just take a free copy, the value of the music decreases. Then the artist and/or record company do not see feasible to produce that artist's music anymore.
Yes, kind of. Only not really at all.
I can print as much fake money as possible and burn it or wallow around on the floor in it and I haven't really devalued the nation's currency at all. Now, if I turn around and try to sell that money to someone as my money, the your analogy holds. However, I can make a copy of a song and listen to it in an infinite loop all day and as long as I never intended to purchase the song in the first place, I haven't devalued the song in any way. (Until such time as I turn around and give or sell it to someone else).
The first content provider who sets up a voluntary "donation page" where you can pay what you think a pirated movie was worth to you, will be seen to "finally get it"... See: Radiohead.
If I could register with an organization and submit donations for movies that I pirated and watched, I would absolutely pay. I still pay my cable bill even though I pirate all of my TV and haven't turned my cable boxes on for over 2 years.
To take just one example, if not for copyright restrictions, Google Books would provably be willing to make available for free to every human on the planet the entire contents of the Library of Congress. You're telling me that the future potential growth from making this knowledge available isn't worth trading 1% of our economy on a one-time basis?
I'm all for artists and production crews getting paid for their hard work. After all, I survive on copyright and I enjoy getting paid or my work. What I can't get behind is (and let's simplify by making the assumption that the theatrical release brought in just enough to cover production, distribution, and the gap between wholesale and retail, for the BluRay release, that none of that revenue went toward paying for the production of the movie itself, and that there was no profit from the theatrical release) being asked to pay $40 for a BluRay copy of a $20M budget flick *after* it's sold 500,000 copies. Pay *something* for it? Yes, but they've recouped their production costs. Remember that a movie budget includes *every* expense, pay for the actors, production crew, stage hands, and the guy that brings the director his coffee, the cost of renting props (and creating one-off props) and buying or renting set locations. Everything. 500k * $40 = $20M. They've been paid at that point. All of them. Everyone.
Now, let's acknowledge that the theatrical release already covered the production budget and brought in a bit of profit. Moving away from the earlier simplification, we also have to admit that, while the $40 cost of a BluRay isn't pure profit, the production and distribution costs of that BluRay disc are much less than the $30 wholesale; pennies per disc, but let's call it $1 to be extra fair to the industry. So they're making $29 on that disc when the store buys it; on a movie that's already been paid for and turned a profit. The people who did the actual work have already been paid by this point, so piracy really and truly is not hurting them; the store they might have bought it from lost $10 or so in profit (and if that store happens to be Target, they probably deserve it at this point, anyway), but the studio can't say they lost the $29 they would have made when the store restocked that sold copy, because the store likely won't restock it unless it's a brand new release, anyway.
For a large subset of pirates, this is the motivating factor. Wholesale the damn disc for $10 with a retail of $15, $5 and $7.50 for DVD, and make a noticeable dent in piracy. Allow (DRM-free) downloads, from the day the BluRay becomes available, for 2/3 of those prices (since there's no resale possible -- and those prices would be $10 for 1080p, $5 for SD) and take out an even larger chunk. Allow *unlimited* streaming, also from the day the BluRay becomes available, at 1/3 of those prices (for those having trouble following along, that's $5 for 1080p and $2.50 for SD) and one-time streaming for $2 for 1080p or $1 for SD, and yes, there will still be pirates, but nobody will bat an eye when you prosecute them.
And if the studios do this first-party, they will reap all of the profits. As it is right now, They see less than $2 for 1080p and $1 for SD from Apple, when someone streams a movie from iTunes, so it would be a win all around.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Recent abuse of government does not mean the whole concept of government is bad.
That's not at all the point I've been making, not even about copyright. My point, as I've made clear, is that copyright itself is intolerable because it infringes upon free speech and real private property rights, regardless of any 'good' people think it does. The less important point I make is that there's no actual scientific evidence that it even is beneficial to begin with.
Thank you Dave Raggett
Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out, your claim is utterly irrelevant because all you've done is limit "scientific evidence" to something that can't practically be done. You've moved the goalposts so far away that nobody can actually meet the level of proof you demand. You're like a creationist who says that we can't know if evolution happened unless we build a time-machine and since that can't be done, then I have "no scientific evidence" for evolution.
All moral and legal systems are based on consequences. We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't. However, we make allowances for certain cases (e.g. yelling fire in a crowded theater). Similarly, we know that lying is bad. In a court of law, lying is called "perjury" and it is punishable by law. If you claim that you wrote something that was actually written by someone else, that lie is called "plagiarism" and it's frowned upon. In other cases, like telling a white lie or lying to protect someone (e.g. protecting someone from being killed by Nazis), we permit and even praise such actions. All lies could also be put under the umbrella term "freedom of speech" (which would suggest that all lies should be legal). So, why are some lies treated very differently than other lies? Because of *consequences*. If you hold some stance that freedom of speech is absolute, then all lies should be permissible and legal. The fact that we care about consequences rather than absolute principles changes things. Copyright (like laws against perjury) might seem like affronts to your principle of free speech, but they are specific exemptions that exist because they are important in creating the kind of society that humans want to live in. I'd go so far as to say that even laws against theft of property isn't a moral absolute, but rather, a principle that we hold to because of the consequences. (And, I'm sure you could complain that government taxation that is used to help poor people could also be classified as "theft" and therefore morally wrong, but I see it as a specific exemption to the "don't steal from one person to give to another person" rule which actually produces a better world.)
Considering that your version of "scientific evidence" involves creating an alternative universe with no copyright and seeing how things work out
Been there, done that. The least you could do is say something that wasn't already said in one of those comments; something I didn't already respond to. The next best thing would be to get rid of copyright, since, again, there is no scientific evidence for it, and by default, restrictions should not exist, so the burden of proof is on those defending restrictions.
We support freedom of speech because the consequences are generally bad if we don't.
I support freedom of speech because I believe freedom of speech is a good thing in and of itself and should not be limited. I simply like the idea of being able to speak freely and not being censored. That is why I do not care for the 'safety mentality' that gives us 'amazing' things like the TSA, the NSA, stop-and-frisk, free speech zones, and all those other things the government uses to violate our rights.
However, we make allowances for certain cases
You might, and society obviously does, but I don't.
Thank you Dave Raggett
I can't complain about access to textbooks because *any* digital store would sell them to me with no problem. I'm a citizen of a country that is both a member of the EU and NATO and everybody else wants my money except the scumbags in Hollywood. I don't want to look "hard". I don't want to jump through hoops and use VPNs. They refuse to allow me access to content based on my location. I'm disciminated against. It infuriates me and I don't give a shit if you think that my problem is laughable.
Even more aggravating is having those same scumbags call me a thief if I "dared" to copy some of their content to watch it. Nevermind that they never wanted to do business with me in the first place, so I would be stealing what exactly? Certainly not the money that they *refused* to take from me.
They have no right to discriminate against me and forbid me access because I happen to live in some "other" country. What you call "entertainment" I call culture, no matter the quality. There's no reason to forbid access to it based on geographical location.
Where was I, or anyone else, demanding anyone sell anything at cost? There is no justification for a 3000% wholesale markup. None, whatsoever. My proposal is a reduction from 3000% to 1000%, still a very attractive markup, and an increase of retail margins from 25% to 50%, with the introduction of new, profitable, first-party services and a shift from less profitable 3rd-party streaming to more profitable (for the studios) and less expensive (for the consumer) first-party streaming services. That spells a win all around and would put an enormous dent in piracy.
It would convert me, at least.
APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
Of course I want instant gratification - that's the whole point of convenience. The sad fact is that I can get a better product for free than anything I can pay for.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
The belief you "deserve" a government-enforced monopoly over ideas or methods.
It's not a belief, they paid for it.
Paid for what?
They paid good fucking money for the laws that give them a perpetual monopoly over ideas and methods, and they expect fucking results.
Look where all this talking got us, baby.
Slight correction for you. Downloading is not defined as a copyright violation. Copyright does not protect who gets access to a protected work, just who can copy and distribute it. Downloading does neither unless you stretch the meaning of the word copying to include the machine you are downloading from making and transmitting a copy to you.
And the lost sale/money argument is incorrect. If you own a canoe rental business and I come in the middle of the night when you are closed and use your canoes without paying you, you are still entitled to the rental fees even though there is no noticeable degradation of the property or inability to rent the canoes. It is a process called conversion which is under the theft laws. Copyright restricts access except when the copyright owner allows and if they demand a fee, you accessing without paying that fee is a loss to them of the entire fee because the law has made it that way.
Now, I do not disagree with your overall premise though. Downloading by those who wouldn't normally go and see the movies or buy the CDs likely does help the studios and artists. The alternative would not be them making a purchase, it would be them ignoring the content altogether had an opportunity not risen that allowed them access. So I am confident that if they were not able to download, no sale would happen just as if you put locks on your canoes. But just as I converted your property for my benefit in the canoe scenario, I would be doing the same in downloading your movies and music without payment and you would legally be otherwise entitled to that payment.