Two Arrests In Denmark For Spreading Information About Popcorn Time 244
An anonymous reader writes: You may recall Popcorn Time, the software that integrated torrents with a streaming media player. It fell afoul of the law quite quickly, but survived and stabilized. Now, out of Denmark comes news that two men operating websites related to Popcorn Time have been arrested, and their sites have been shut down. It's notable because the sites were informational resources, explaining how to use the software. They did not link to any copyright-infringing material, they were not involved with development of Popcorn Time or any of its forks, and they didn't host the software. "Both men stand accused of distributing knowledge and guides on how to obtain illegal content online and are reported to have confessed."
Confessed? (Score:5, Insightful)
NEVER confess to anything! All they've done is to hang themselves. Gubbermint says, "We don't like what you're doing." Your response? Are you really going to tell gubbermint, "Oh, I'm so sorry - please, just lock me away for a few decades!"
The better response is, "Prove your case, assholes!"
Re: (Score:2)
>> are reported to have confessed ...by whom? TFA doesn't cite anything at all.
Re:Confessed? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
NEVER confess to anything! All they've done is to hang themselves.
This is Europe, not the USA. They're likely to get pretty light sentences at most if not just probation and a fine. If Hitler were miraculously still alive and arrested today in Europe, he wouldn't get the death penalty and any sentence more than a few years might be viewed as excessive given his age.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on whether the prosecutors think they can get an easy pinch. Probably they were threatened with the wrath of Khan if they DIDN'T confess. The Man usually says something like "Look, we've got you dead to rights you know, we will squash you so thin like a bug if you make us take it to a trial. Or ... you can get off much lighter if you just confess."
Faced with the choice between the ruination of their life, or basically a bad hair day for some months, or a very few years, and considering the expens
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If Hitler were miraculously still alive and arrested today in Europe, he wouldn't get the death penalty
So? The Nazi Germany didn't do anything that other countries, including Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc., had not also done. The only difference is that Hitler did it to white people.
More people were killed [wikipedia.org] in forced labor on rubber plantations, than in all the Nazi death camps combined.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Wow. There's no reverse-Godwins Law, you know. You can't stretch the thread out into infinity by saying ludicrous shit about Hitler.
Re: (Score:3)
Hitler was worse, while I am able believe more people where killed in rubber plantations than death camps. The main purpose of the death camps was to kill, they specifically had gas chambers to kill people. While the plantations being cruel and inhumane, (well all forms of slavery really) their primary purpose was to make money, so greed was the driving factor not hate.
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
The group selected to die, about three-quarters of the total, included almost all children, women with small children, all the elderly, and all those who appeared on brief and superficial inspection by an SS doctor not to be completely fit.
If you wanted a work force you would not kill the children, since they would grow up to be labor. In
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I am not actually saying that working someone to death is not worse than just killing them. It might well be. I am saying the motive of greed is not as bad intentionally trying to kill someone, because you hate them.
To me a large part what drives how someone should be punished is what drives them to do it, e.g. if someone accidentally kill you then the punishment should be less than if they intentionally do it.
Re: (Score:2)
So Hitler's primary crime was to be not capitalist enough to work his slaves to death and instead kill them outright, is that what you say?
Re:Confessed? (Score:5, Informative)
So? The Nazi Germany didn't do anything that other countries, including Britain, France, Netherlands, Belgium, etc., had not also done. The only difference is that Hitler did it to white people.
More people were killed [wikipedia.org] in forced labor on rubber plantations, than in all the Nazi death camps combined.
That is misleading; those figures for Congo are "depopulation" losses, not people killed. No other comparison points implied, but several western countries these days are being "depopulated" due to falling birth numbers, that doesn't mean there are secret massacres going on. "Depopulation" also includes population losses from people deciding to only have 1-2 kids instead of 3-4 kids needed to sustain the population.
Sure, there were huge atrocities going on in Congo, but the numbers you are quoting aren't only about people being killed as forced labor on rubber plantation as you claim. According to your cited source, the majority died of "sleeping sickness", still a killer disease in Congo these days.
The Death camps however where targeted killing machines, murdering people sometimes minutes after they had arrived by train. They also killed millions of people in a very short time, basically a couple of years, while the Congo depopulation took 40 years. The Nazi war on the eastern front killed +27 million people in 3-4 years in comparison.
Also of interest is that the (at least) 6 millions Jews killed was just the warm-up, since Mischlinge (half/quarter/etc Jewish descent) was next, and with the "General Plan Ost", the Nazi regime basically intended to exterminate all Slavic people from Poland to the Ural mountains except for a small amount that was to be kept as slaves.
Saying that Hitler and the Nazi regime only did what the British, Belgians etc, had done previously is just plain out wrong. There has never been anything remotely like the Nazi Death camps before.
There has also never been anything in both scale and intentions that have ever matched the Nazi regime when it came to Genocide, not even Stalin's USSR.
Re: (Score:2)
There has also never been anything in both scale and intentions that have ever matched the Nazi regime when it came to Genocide, not even Stalin's USSR.
Armenian Genocide [wikipedia.org]
While the Armenian Genocide was horrible, it was dwarfed by the Nazi Genocide by at least a factor of ten. The German occupation killed at something 14 million civilian Russians alone.
Re: (Score:2)
Except the British in Kenya? On in India?
The British never had a policy of extermination. There was never British Death camps like Majdanek or Sobibor, nor British units like the Nazi Waffen-SS 1. Brigade or the Einsatzgruppen, that toured eastern Europa systematically killing off whole villages by forcing the victims to dig graves and then shoot them in groups so their bodies was layered as "packed sardines"; shooting the men first, then the women and children. There was never a British "Babi Yar"
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babi_Yar massacre.
T
Re: (Score:2)
you forget that under the right to be forgotten, google would probably have to delist half of the web.
Re: (Score:3)
"This is Europe, not the USA. They're likely to get pretty light sentences at most if not just probation and a fine."
Let's try applying logic to this question. If the European sentence for mass murder is assumed as being one breivik, a unit of punishment equal to 21 Earth years, then Adolf Hitler would have gotten a full life sentence of Br 4.0, and the Popcorn Time boys would get about a microbreivik suspended.
But this is law, not logic. The MPAA/RIAA occupies the same place in European jurisprudence that
Re: (Score:2)
If Hitler were miraculously still alive and arrested today in Europe, he wouldn't get the death penalty and any sentence more than a few years might be viewed as excessive given his age.
If Hitler was alive in present day Europe, he'd be elected to office in heartbeat :(
Re: (Score:2)
No. You ask 'Am I being detained?' if yes you say 'Lawyer, lawyer, lawyer...'
Not talking will save you legal fees too. Just shut up, let them make their own case.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Dude,
That's in the US. Denmark is a separate country, with an entirely separate legal system. It may be wise to tell them "yes I did those things you are alleging, and if your interpretation of the law is correct I am guilty," and then fight the interpretation of the law.
For a really prominent example of the Bad Things that happen when you try to apply American rights in a non-American legal system look at Amanda Knox. In the US claiming a confession is coerced is a no-brainer. It's pretty much the only way
Re: (Score:2)
Dude,
That's in the US. Denmark is a separate country, with an entirely separate legal system. It may be wise to tell them "yes I did those things you are alleging, and if your interpretation of the law is correct I am guilty," and then fight the interpretation of the law.
For a really prominent example of the Bad Things that happen when you try to apply American rights in a non-American legal system look at Amanda Knox. In the US claiming a confession is coerced is a no-brainer. It's pretty much the only way to get a confession thrown out. In Italy it got her convicted of (and sentenced to a few years in jail for) slander.
Because coercion of a confession is normal and expected in the US, and it is only the degree of coercion that make it illegal (not unlike torture in the mid 200x), so it worth discussing, and not considered an unusal or extreme charge to bring up casually. In the rest of the world, coercion is illegal, period! It is like accusing the presecusion of beating their wives or the judge of taking bribes. Even in legally dubious countries like Italy that is just crazy.
It has to do with the lack of right in America
Re: (Score:2)
That's just an absolutely ridiculous take for anyone even remotely familiar with the Knox case. At no point in the proceedings did the Italian justice system live up to the barest minimum standards of justice of the industrialized world.
This is not unique to Italy, although there were quite a few Italian quirks to the whole fiasco. Claiming that a prosecutor being able to successfully throw his weight around to defend the honor of the Italian legal system is somehow an indictment of the rights afforded US
Lawyer (Score:2)
NEVER confess to anything! All they've done is to hang themselves. Gubbermint says, "We don't like what you're doing." Your response? Are you really going to tell gubbermint, "Oh, I'm so sorry - please, just lock me away for a few decades!"
The better response is, "Prove your case, assholes!"
No, the correct response if you are arrested and interrogated is "laywer" and then shutting the hell up. Not being rude to the police. Your odds of saying anything that will make them change their mind and decide not to prosecute you are like 1 in ten thousand. Your odds of shutting up and saying "lawyer" helping you are much, much, much higher.
There are places where "lawyer" does not help. These are mostly places where the cops feel free to beat the crap out of you, so being nice to the cops there is e
Re: (Score:2)
That's a nice terrorist manual you have on your passenger seat.
See you. Trial? I just said the one word that turns you from a suspect into an enemy combatant. Now, into that eight by ten room where I'll keep you until you grow old and die.
Re: (Score:2)
Confessed to have posted the information is one thing, confessed to that action as a crime is another. Imagine for an instance to replace "Popcorn time", with "Bit torrent". That I made an article of how to use Bit Torrent, for instance for downloading software such as Linux - is completely legal.
I have not used Popcorn time, but I believe it is used for much more than downloading illegal movies. For instance if I made an instructional movie for how to use the computer creative commons and made it available
Re: (Score:2)
I just noticed TorrentFreak had a link to the English version of their site prior to it being taken down, and it had a video of using the application for watching copyrighted content such as HBO's "Games of Thrones", so I guess they really did mess up...
Re:Confessed? (Score:4)
Re: (Score:3)
Pleading guilty or taking a plea bargain is entirely different than confessing to a crime. In a plea bargain, you are admitting guilt for a bartered reduction in penalty, and have a contract in writing. If you confess to police, you have no more defense. The police have no capacity to grant you leniency for cooperating, no matter what they claim. Instead, you are making it easier for the court system to convict you, by a HUGE margin. You are not only confessing that you committed a crime, but also confirming that a crime occurred. Now the courts have less incentive to offer a plea bargain, and will offer a worse deal or no deal, because they are more certain of a conviction. By confessing, you are giving away the biggest, and often times only, bargaining chip you have.
Plea bargaining (when you know you are innocent) would surely be perjury and not allowed in any civilized country? Surely?
Re: (Score:3)
I don't know, do the US count as a civilized country?
Apparently not... encouraging perjury? Thats a slippery slope for a legal system.
"You know you are innocent, we know you are probably innocent too. But if you just lie and plead guilty it'd just make everyones lives so much easier so go ahead, please lie under oath."
Thats not even a real legal system if it positively encourages such blatant disregard and disrespect for the process of law.
Re: (Score:3)
That's all relevant to the US, not Denmark. I suspect that the legal contexts are so different that the very phrase "confession" may have a completely different definition.
ie: if you're in the US, and you tell the cops you shot that guy, but it was not murder it was self-defense; or you admit that you took those videos of the police but the statute banning videos of the police is invalid; etc. it would not be considered a confession because you aren't admitting to legal guilt. And to use those defenses effe
Re: (Score:3)
"You seem to forget just how fucking expensive it is to defend against even wrongful accusations."
You seem to forget a minor detail: this has happened in Denmark, not USA.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Confessed? (Score:5, Funny)
Free lawyers for defendants in criminal courts in the United States too! ... and from what I've heard, they're worth every penny.
Re: (Score:3)
While true it doesn't really change a thing in this case. Yes, you only get to pay the fees after the verdict and yes, you only get to pay if you lose.
Sadly, the game is rigged to ensure that you lose. So you can afford to go the whole length of the case. And THEN you're broke. Because one thing is certain: You will be guilty.
Re: (Score:2)
"Because one thing is certain: You will be guilty."
Are you implying there's no case in Denmark where the defendant comes non-guilty?
Re: (Score:2)
Your confession is the only bargaining chip you have (assuming their aren't others to roll over on anyway).
You'd have to be mighty stupid to give it up in return for nothing.
There's plenty of time to confess before you enter your plea in court - you might as well try and get something in return rather than rushing to give it away.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Thoughtcrime! (Score:5, Insightful)
Comparing copyright infringement to murder for hire. You're the moron.
Re: (Score:2)
EVERYTHING short-circuits freespeech, you fuckwits. Shouting "Fire" in a theater is perfectly legal - endangering human life is not, and the 1stA doesn't grant new, override powers.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh please. You're a moron. This is no different from a mob boss telling his underlings whom to kill. You would probably argue that the mob boss was simply using his freedom of speech to express his opinion. Speech has consequences and in this case, it's piracy.
What a clownish statement. First of all, ordering a hit is a crime because murder is. Saying how to shoot a gun is not. Saying how to shoot to kill is not -- gun training courses do exactly that.
I have a sympathetic ear that the real goal is 99% illegal downloads, but that is the crime. Properly speaking, nobody granted government power to regulate free speech to begin with, but these are vox populi vox dei parliaments that fly by the seat of their majorities, so YMMV.
Both men stand accused of distributing knowledge
Not one further word need be read t
Re: (Score:2)
The original reference to teachers was not comparable either. These guys were operating in the same form as accomplices which means they fall within the grasp of the justice system. If teachers were teaching a language with the purpose of enabling crime they would then also become accomplices.
Copyright issues isn't as damaging to society as say a web sites that enables access to drug dealers. Unfortunately in the eyes of the law, crime is crime. My advice to anybody is to avoid getting involved in enabling
Re:Thoughtcrime! (Score:5, Insightful)
The original reference to teachers was not comparable either.
It was not supposed to be comparable, it was supposed to demonstrate the dangers of prosecuting people for non-crimes based on what someone speculates as intent.
Copyright issues isn't as damaging to society as say a web sites that enables access to drug dealers.
That may be true, but you are also incorrectly attempting to equate apples to orangutans. These guys were not publishing maps to drug dealers, and even if they were that would not be illegal (at least in the US). Arrest records are public information which would give someone enough to know where to buy drugs. While it may seem sleezy to publish such a map, it certainly would not be illegal. These guys were only publishing information, not providing the tools to use the information with.
Since you can not make a fair comparison either, how about I give you one? "The Anarchists Cookbook" is not illegal to possess and not illegal to purchase (again, at least in the US). That book contains information on how to do illegal things too, and nobody is going to jail over that book.
An even better comparison may be to a crime novel. There is lots of information in those about how to break the law. Are those illegal also? How about a book that shows the parts of a Machine gun, are those now illegal because anyone can go to a URL and read how to take one apart and put it together? Machine guns are illegal right?
My advice to anybody is to avoid getting involved in enabling illegal activities or be willing to accept possible consequences.
My advice to you is to learn some history and stop defending non-event prosecution. Perhaps then you would realize how dangerous the process you are backing really is. Immunity for people who think they are in the club generally does not last very long. Chinese and Russian history is full of examples.
Re: (Score:2)
Copyright issues isn't as damaging to society as say a web sites that enables access to drug dealers.
That may be true, but you are also incorrectly attempting to equate apples to orangutans
It's not because there is proof that some encouragement of illegal activities is available and not reprimanded that it's not illegal. I can jerk off in front of your house all day but until someone calls the cops about it I'm not going to be charge for it. If nobody cares it won't see the light of day. Keep in mind that US is one of the few places where hate speech is allowed and the laws are very different in other countries such as Denmark in this case.
My advice to you is to learn some history
Why are you getting personal?
My advice to you is to learn some history and stop defending non-event prosecution. Perhaps then you would realize how dangerous the process you are backing really is. Immunity for people who think they are in the club generally does not last very long. Chinese and Russian history is full of examples.
Oh look, I played with a
Re:Thoughtcrime! (Score:4, Insightful)
Copyright issues isn't as damaging to society as say a web sites that enables access to drug dealers.
That may be true, but you are also incorrectly attempting to equate apples to orangutans
It's not because there is proof that some encouragement of illegal activities is available and not reprimanded that it's not illegal. I can jerk off in front of your house all day but until someone calls the cops about it I'm not going to be charge for it. If nobody cares it won't see the light of day. Keep in mind that US is one of the few places where hate speech is allowed and the laws are very different in other countries such as Denmark in this case.
My advice to you is to learn some history
Why are you getting personal?
You ignoring history is not personal, it's a statement of fact. I provided two recent examples of what happens when a government is allowed to make arbitrary rulings by guessing intent. I could add Cambodia, Thailand, Vietnam, Italy, Germany, Cuba, and I'll stop there because you should get the point. If you want to defend your position show me where history is wrong. In fact show me in history where allowing this type of ruling has not turned out catastrophically for the majority of the population.
My advice to you is to learn some history and stop defending non-event prosecution. Perhaps then you would realize how dangerous the process you are backing really is. Immunity for people who think they are in the club generally does not last very long. Chinese and Russian history is full of examples.
Oh look, I played with a knife and I cut myself. Why are people surprised when this happens? I don't need history to tell me that publishing information about illegal activities is playing with fire. You piss someone off enough they'll make it their life's work to ruin yours. It's exactly what is happening here. History has many example of this too.
Take a minute to review the definition of accessory to a crime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
If you want to defend your position show me where my examples were wrong instead of making up more invalid comparisons and nonsense.
How is these people publishing text any different than the Anarchist's handbook? How is this different than writing up "how to" guides for taking apart machine guns?
You are claiming that writing and publishing here is a crime because you say the subject matter is dangerous. I provided equally dangerous materials which won't result in jail. I have been courteous enough to demonstrate my position. I provided other dangerous material which would not result in publishing being a crime.. Demonstrate your yours and show me the logic. Reality please, not more unrelated fluff.
Re: (Score:2)
Absolutely, yes, for #1 and #2. That speech should be completely free. Their actions are still illegal, but not because of any free-speech issues. Directing your underlings to massively pollute is illegal because it's illegal to pollute (whether you're the guy doing the dumping or the guy's boss who pays him to do it), not because speaking is illegal. Screwing over customers is (likely) illegal (depending on the exact points of law and the actions), but writing a memo about how to do it is not, it's fre
Re: (Score:2)
If a banker wants to write a memo telling how to screw customers, but then he never actually screws any customers over, nor do any of his underlings, then he's fine. That's no different than writing a fictional story about committing a murder.
#3 is different because that falls under the "incitement" condition.
Actually, I don't think this is correct. I'm not sure how far you have to go, but simply talking speculatively about committing a crime can be a crime. Sometimes a much more serious crime than the crime being discussed. It is called a "criminal conspiracy" and in many countries (including the US - see US v. Shabani) you don't need to take any overt actions in furtherance of the conspiracy in order to be convicted.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd like to see a case where merely talking about a crime actually landed someone in jail. The way I understand it, "conspiracy" to commit a crime goes beyond just "talking about" it, because that really is thoughtcrime. "Conspiracy" involves more than that: making actual plans, paying someone to do the deed, having motive, etc. A couple of guys getting drunk and saying they'd like to kill their wives is not "conspiracy".
Re:Two arrests in Denmark for Murder Time (TM) (Score:5, Insightful)
Bullocks.
And that's not "unhealthy" or "libertarian-leaning" or anything. That's freedom of thought, speech, and press, plain and simple. And the concept predates the mass adoption of the internet by decades.
Remember dead-tree bookstores? In the mid-90s, you could walk into pretty much any Barnes & Nobles, find on the shelves, and buy a copy of "The Anarchist Cookbook", Abby Hoffman's "Steal This Book", any number of the Hayduke "Getting Even" books, PIHKAL, TIHKAL, and occasionally they would even have "The Poor Man's James Bond". Any and all of those contain instructions on howto do things that were and are illegal. Some of them actively encourage those actions. And that's in a mainstream chain book store that used to be in every town of any significant population. If you checked out independent "alternative" bookstores or bookstores aimed at activist communities in large cities you'd find stuff even more colorful. And it's all 100% legal, because we punish people for ACTIONS, not writings or thoughts. And there's absolutely no reason whatsoever for that to be different because computers.
Re:Two arrests in Denmark for Murder Time (TM) (Score:5, Insightful)
Well said.
I also have a huge issue with Beerdood's statement that, "Maybe it's time to re-think your principles and realize that "information" that supports or promotes illegal activity should be taken down, regardless of how severe the crime is". Fuck that.
Laws change, and that change often comes through education of others. Promoting women's suffrage in the 1800's should not be illegal. Documenting how a Jewish person might escape Germany in 1945 should not be illegal. I'm not surprised that those in power want it to be illegal to simply document how to do something that might have an impact on their bottom line and may violate copyright laws in some (ok, most) jurisdictions, but we should not consider that acceptable. One may argue otherwise, but I feel this would fall directly under Amendment I of the US Bill of Rights (and yes, I realize this is not taking place in the US, but these are an enumeration of what many believe to be unalienable rights).
They're not forcing anyone to read those pages; They're not distributing copyrighted works, or even links to copyrighted works; The wrong parties are being sought out there - those that are violating the copyrights should be the targets. The problem with that is that Beerdood would likely be charged, just as would most of the RIAA, MPAA, the lawyers, and most of society as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullocks
I'm not sure I can follow you here - what have castrated bulls got to do with the issue? ;-)
But back to the matter at hand; I'm not sure this is about what is legal or not in Denmark. Danish police are not in general known for their open-mindedness; it isn't a quality that looms large in the selection criteria for the force. So, they tend to be small-minded rule followers, who are reluctant to investigate the crimes of the powerful and rich. As a consequence, Danish police are not really regarded with much
Re:Two arrests in Denmark for Murder Time (TM) (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Two arrests in Denmark for Murder Time (TM) (Score:2, Insightful)
The majority of cars and roads are used for the illegal activities of speeding, illegal lane changes, running red lights, drunk driving, and a host of other crimes. Roads and cars should be banned.
Popcorn time loves barbara streisand (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'd suspect that it's simply the publicity they've generated by prosecuting these guys. You know about it now, don't you? Now, if they'd just let things be, nobody would have been any the wiser.
Re: (Score:2)
Streisand Effect.
Re:Popcorn time loves barbara streisand (Score:5, Funny)
I see the distinction, but I don't honestly see a difference.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He HAD TO say it was Sweden. If he said the correct country, he'd be "spreading information" which we now know is a crime.
Re:Popcorn time loves barbara streisand (Score:4, Funny)
Is there a law? (Score:5, Insightful)
"Both men stand accused of distributing knowledge and guides on how to obtain illegal content online and are reported to have confessed."
?
If there is, then they are probably in violation. But aren't there other resources on how to do illegal things that don't get shut down? Plenty of folks have written about how to get onto Silk Road and buy drugs and yet we haven't seen those sites disappear... curious. Just goes to show they don't care about whether its illegal or not, only if it *slightly* affects their bottom line. But we all knew that already, didn't we?
Re:Is there a law? (Score:5, Insightful)
In order to exceed the speed limit follow these steps...
1. Turn on your car
2. Put your car in a drive gear.
3. Depress the accelerator pedal until the speedometer shows a value higher than the posted speed limit. (Try to avoid obstacles.)
I'm off to the police station to confess. Bye /.
Re: (Score:2)
(Try to avoid obstacles.)
But in my monster truck that takes the fun out of it!
Re: (Score:2)
All-time prize winning post.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Your analogy is good but it's not a 100% comparative. If you included information about where the police is and isn't so that you can speed without getting caught that would be more like it.
Or how to setup a police radar...
Because speeding isn't considered as much of an offence as stealing it doesn't get the same response from the authorities.
Re: (Score:3)
What does stealing have to do with this case?
Copyright infringement is not theft
Re: (Score:2)
Your now ready to become a lawyer.
Copyright infringement is still a criminal offense (One that still has many grey lines).
Re: (Score:2)
There are only three scenarios where it is a criminal offense in my country. All of which must involve selling, hiring or for use in the course of a business.
Anything a person does for their own use is a civil matter.
Re: (Score:2)
The more important difference is that the speeding could theoretically lead to someone's death, the copyright infringement could not.
Re: (Score:2)
Which is why it's much easier to proceed with a crime that has no consequences so it's why it takes precedence over the one that is less likely. (I'm referring to the people making use of the information, not the ones providing it).
Most people could speed excessively today but don't (key being excessive). There were studies done on this and believe it or not most speed limits are set based on driver comfort zone with a few exceptions such as school zones. Most people don't want to get in an accident so they
Re: (Score:2)
Somewhere, right now there are probably 2 or more young drivers jokingly following the instructions on how to speed.
They probably don't expect it to be a problem. Honestly, neither do I.
Re: (Score:2)
1. Combine (insert materials here) to make an effective bomb
2. Transport bomb via (specific technique) as to not arouse suspicions
3. Have an alibi of some sorts, (this) is a good one
4. Pick (specific day/time) for maximum effectiveness
5. Detonate bomb!
Hey, don't arrest me, I'm just exercising my free speech here! There's nothing legally or morally wrong about the information my website has to offer, so fuck off you socialist ba
Re: (Score:3)
Then you may not want to read this article on Wired, "10 Guns, Bombs, and Weapons You Can Build at the Airport": http://www.wired.com/2013/12/t... [wired.com]
Let alone the myriad of books that have been published on exactly the topic you describe, and loads and loads of "fiction" in movies, tv, books, etc following the same. You must really hate Dexter.
Re: (Score:2)
don't use bittorrent to mirror files (Score:2)
Here's an article about the huge latency caused by bittorrent traffic on your network [formortals.com].
So arrested for what they think, basically...? (Score:4, Interesting)
That what they were distributing was information on how to break the law is wholly irrelevant to the subject at hand, which is that they were sill ultimately arrested for distributing knowledge... effectively making legislating what people are allowed to even *THINK* about.
Thought crimes? (Score:2)
Counterproductive (Score:4, Insightful)
These arrests seem counterproductive. I was not aware of Popcorntime at all, but with this media coverage, am now more inclined to take a look at it. The media companies need to rethink their strategy. These services become more popular when they get them in the public eye (Napster, Limewire, Gnutella, PirateBay, etc.)
How about spreading knowledge of how to murder? (Score:4, Interesting)
Crime shows and heist films are educating bank robbers and future murderers, teaching them how to plan bank robberies and how to hide murders. They even show the process of how the police typically catch other bank robbers and murderers, further educating them on how to avoid police detection. The entire cast of CSI needs to report to the local precinct ASAP.
Re: (Score:2)
If I was planning to do a bank robbery or murder, I would not base my plans of a TV show, while they may show some actual police processes they are probably full of make believe too. While I am not familiar with actual crime investigations processes I can tell there are lot of flaws things I know about.
One example seems to be how they almost always seem to send in two people to apprehend a known armed criminal, when I would think a swat team would usually sent in. I know this is to build drama, but I doubt
Re: (Score:2)
Except those TV shows are fiction - those techniques don't work.
The process they show is made up to the point it doesn't usually obey the laws of physics.
Libraries are next (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Nah, don't dismantle them. Too much work. Just taint them with a massive number of titles like:
Physics - Born Again
The Chemistry of Transubstantiation
The Science of Sin/The Sin of Science
Eureka, I've Found YHWH
Re: (Score:2)
or replace the nonfiction shelves with face displays of Rowling, James, et. al.
Pander to the belle du jour, tits and ass hunger of the teenage boy (or girl), while deliberately starving the wider populace of actual useful knowledge like how to bake bread (I'm utterly shocked but not surprised at how many people DON'T know how to make bread but know all the fucking cheats for Candy Crush!) or how to make and use a penny stove (without googling - what's a penny stove? Don't try and double bluff me, I make and
Re: (Score:2)
Until now ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:stop them ! (Score:5, Insightful)
Popcorn Time steals from the lives of the people who created this content. Those who aid and abet thieves should get put away. I realize this forum exists solely to promote ripping off GoT episodes, but, come ON. Wake up people.
You just provided information regarding the types of shows available on Popcorn Time. Now they are going to arrest you too.
Re: (Score:2)
Now they are going to arrest you too.
Compromising police operations. That's a paddlin'.
The dog in the manger (Score:5, Interesting)
So what's the lawful way to view, say, the film Song of the South or the TV series Spartakus and the Sun Beneath the Sea? I've never tried Popcorn Time, but I know these works tend to be missing from lawful streaming services' libraries. If there is none, how does this "dog in the manger" mentality "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts", as one country's constitution puts it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Worst, most pathetic, stupidest attempt at sarcasm ever attempted.
Re: (Score:3)
Copyright is completely insane anyway, and this has desensitized many people from breaking it at will when they can. We no longer have sane terms like 14 years after first publication (which iirc was the original term in US before all the extensions to make it a multi-generational cash cow). If that was still the case, then piracy would perhaps have not taken off in such a big way in the first place, because the public would be more supportive of creators getting reimbursed for their content.
However, with t
Re: (Score:2)
You've confused copyright infringement with theft.
Theft is when you take something away from someone. They no longer have it.
Copyright infringement is when you copy something without paying for it. The victim has not lost anything, buy they have also not gained anything either.
Re: (Score:2)
Content producers think, "Ah, I don't want to front something like this. People won't pay for it, so I'll get nothing back". Then he doesn't hire actors, writers, secretaries, etc.
Your argument would have more weight if we weren't in the middle of a golden age of Video/TV/Film production. The quality & quantity of the content being created, and the economic activity surrounding these activities, are all reaching record highs. More people are employed in television, film and videography now than ever before.
Re: (Score:2)
apparently, from another thread, another AC posted this
http://news.slashdot.org/comme... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
5 months ago, the danish news site Ekstra Bladet had an story about Popcorn Time (in danish):
http://ekstrabladet.dk/kup/pir... [ekstrabladet.dk]
Is that article illegal as well? I guess a LOT of people learned about Popcorn Time that day...
One step at a time.
The news service likely has lawyers on retainer which means a lengthy legal battle and the outcome is less than certain.
Therefor, you go after the low-hanging fruit like these two poor slobs who are without such resources in order to build a string of solid legal court precedents.
*Then* you go after the news service(s), libraries, bookstores, universities, etc.
Strat
Re: (Score:2)
Blahblahblah latest movie home release!!! Own it today!!!
Oops. Perhaps they should say "license it today" instead if that was what they actually mean.