You Can Watch Pluto TV in VLC, and the MPA Considers This Piracy (theverge.com) 67
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) issued a DMCA notice to a GitHub repo that contained a playlist that let viewers watch Pluto TVs streams on their own apps, such as VLC, MPV, and Tvheadend. From a report: The move was first noticed by TorrentFreak, and GitHub has complied and removed the repo, which ultimately does nothing. If you still have a tiny text file, you can still do exactly what the MPA tried to stop. Pluto TV, for those who do not watch it, is a service owned by Paramount that allows users to legally stream movies and TV shows free of charge on many devices. They have a mobile app, apps for Xbox and PlayStation, smart TVs, and dongles. Users do not even need to sign up to use it. In turn, Pluto's business model is predicated on serving ads and tracking user behavior. It's part of a newer breed of streaming product called free ad-supported television, or FAST. The GitHub repo in question contained M3U playlists to watch Pluto TV's content via an app like VLC. The repo basically took links that were already available and gathered them in one place. It should be noted that M3U files aren't torrent files; it's just a simple playlist file that can direct to local files and web sources.
Hotlinking (Score:5, Insightful)
The behavior is typically frowned upon as bad netiquette, but I'd say they're going a bit far by claiming it's a DMCA violation. I don't think the DMCA was ever intended to fill in for content providers being too lazy to apply DRM to their streaming content.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I don't think the DMCA was ever intended to fill in for content providers being too lazy to apply DRM to their streaming content.
That's *exactly* what it was intended for.
"Access control" used to mean using some technical method such as a login/password or having some key to control access.
The DMCA is what redefined "an access control" to be "we said so." Quite literally.
It lets providers leave their stuff out in public with a giant "take me" sign on it, and so long as the provider speaks out loud the words "We did not authorize that", it then becomes a crime to have taken it.
I'm really curious to hear what you think the DMCA does t
Re: (Score:2)
...That's *exactly* what it was intended for.
"Access control" used to mean using some technical method such as a login/password or having some key to control access.
The DMCA is what redefined "an access control" to be "we said so." Quite literally...
Isn't that referred to as entrapment under the law?
Oh, wait. Sorry. I forgot the law doesn't apply to them. My bad. /eye roll
condition of watching PlutoTV? (Score:1)
Isn't the whole point here, that people found out that it's not actually a condition?
Re:condition of watching PlutoTV? (Score:4, Insightful)
If you broadcast shit, people can view it. End of fucking thread.
Doesn't matter if you unintentionally broadcast it. This is not "people are entering my unlocked front door", this is you accidentally stapling your browser history to the community board instead of a used car ad.
Re: (Score:1)
Addendum: There may be some moral hesitation IF the document contains instructions that you should discontinue viewing for conditions XYZ.
No, having some fineprint ToS somewhere somewhen somehow doesn't count. I mean shit like "For MountainWest HR use only" at the top of some .xls full of social security numbers. In the broadcast itself. And again, I'd only hold it up as a moral obligation.
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't the whole point here, that people found out that it's not actually a condition?
...and not to state the obvious but is this not a way to encourage many thousands, possibly a million more to engage in this activity now?
Which, of course, means loss of revenue. Money. Loss of money means something must be done to stop the leak. So surely they'll conjure up something to manage the media now, which they should have effing done in the first place.
To quote the great Napoleon Dynamite: Gawddd.. Frickinnnn'... IDIOTS.
I'm not a smart person.... (Score:1)
Re:I'm not a smart person.... (Score:5, Informative)
Much more important to the MPA since that is more valuable than anything on that service to them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: I'm not a smart person.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
None of that seems like copyright infringement to me, it's just breaking a contract... at best.
Re: (Score:2)
None of that seems like copyright infringement to me, it's just breaking a contract... at best.
If the contract is the only thing that grants you a license to "make the copy / perform the work", then making the copy or performiung the work in violation of the terms of the contract IS copyright infringement.
That's how GPL stands copyright on its head. The works are copyrighted and the license makes requirements to use it (such as distributing the source to anyone to whom you distributed the compiled form.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the face of it:
The streaming service has been authorized to distribute copyrighted works to remote locations upon web request via a technology known as streaming.
People make these web requests and receive these copyrighted streams from the authorized distributor.
If we are to believe the streaming service was not authorized to distribute the copyrighted works in some
Re: (Score:2)
Since when do they get to apply a licensing agreement to people they have no relationship with and are not a party to that agreement?
On the face of it:
The streaming service has been authorized to distribute copyrighted works to remote locations upon web request via a technology known as streaming.
People make these web requests and receive these copyrighted streams from the authorized distributor.
If we are to believe the streaming service was not authorized to distribute the copyrighted works in some cases due to the nature of the receiver, then it is the streaming service that is in violation of distributing copyrighted material without authorization.
This is why the service goes so far to paint the picture that its the people they are distributing to that are the real villains. Because frankly and on the face of it they've got the liability for violating copyright. They are the violators. "We were tricked" just doesnt seem to fly here, does it?
The very fist time you enter tho the site (or if you enter to the site after clearing your browser), you are presented with a typical "by using our page you abide to tour ToS". I shgould know, I use pluto from time to time.
Also, the studios that licenses the content to Pluto probably did so on condition that said content was only distributed on their page and official apps, not as .m3u8 lists. That's why it was the MPAA (as per TFS) and NOT Pluto or Paramount the ones who requested the takedown...
Re: (Score:2)
First , ToS is not copyright
Second, if i'm using a third party app to access the screen, i don't see any ToS, so no, i'm not forced to follow it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
ToS are what give you a licence to use the copyrighted materials. Without the ToS, you're infringing.
So by walking by my neighbor's house way down the street and gazing at their front lawn, I might be violating a law because they have a ToS agreement tied to those who communicate with them via a different method, it is a violation to look at their lawn without model 1554X DejaRay Glasses? Why do they leave their lawn out in the open for viewing by anyone who walks by in any manner if said viewing is such a tight concern for their peace of mind?
Just saying....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Looking at a lawn without a licence doesn't violate copyright. Completely different.
That's my point. Who's to know what is and isn't legal/what/relevant/etc? You can be committing a crime while doing something completely normal and every-day, based on where you are and under what context.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are broadcasting a movie in a public and open way, your ToS may say we require a special device, but that do not apply because it is exactly open and public, you can't control it and force a ToS. A TV broadcast can't limit what device people use to see the TV, you aren't forced to accept any ToS. The best they can do is a technical way to limit the broadcast, that way they can impose a ToS. Either DRM, or the smarter way, add the ads to the stream directly (that can't be bypassed, just like a TV)
Or
Re: I'm not a smart person.... (Score:4, Informative)
The very fist time you enter tho the site (or if you enter to the site after clearing your browser), you are presented with a typical "by using our page you abide to tour ToS". I shgould know, I use pluto from time to time.
And if you don't enter the site and just use a m3u file you found you haven't agreed to nothing - there is no contract.
Also, the studios that licenses the content to Pluto probably did so on condition that said content was only distributed on their page and official apps, not as .m3u8 lists.
There was no content distributed since m3u-files are just contain url's. What people did with those files is an entirely different matter.
That's why it was the MPAA (as per TFS) and NOT Pluto or Paramount the ones who requested the takedown...
Then they lied on the DMCA-request since no content they owned was in the github repo..
My takeaway from this, the studios do what they always do since the DMCA was made law, they use it as a bludgeon even on things they don't own the rights to. And Pluto, talk about being naÃve techno-illiterates to some degree. If you are going to have a free streaming service based on monetizing users habits you damn well make sure only those users can access the content the approved way with some sort of verification, whether it being cryptographic, user accounts or something else.
Re: (Score:2)
...
There was no content distributed since m3u-files are just contain url's. What people did with those files is an entirely different matter. ...
I mentioned in another post, but I'm doing so here just to back your statement up... In other forms of law, is that not blatantly considered entrapment? I mean, let's put both side by side here and compare.
Re: (Score:2)
In other forms of law, is that not blatantly considered entrapment?
I'm not sure what you mean with entrapment in this context. In general, entrapment means the intent was to induce a person to commit an act that have negative consequences for them. If there is no such intent, there is no entrapment either.
If you are thinking that distributing url's that points to copyrighted works is a form of entrapment, see the reasoning above. Real life situations doesn't usually reduce down to such simplistic outcomes since lacking intent for an action isn't really a good excuse in a c
Re: (Score:2)
...
This is why the service goes so far to paint the picture that its the people they are distributing to that are the real villains. Because frankly and on the face of it they've got the liability for violating copyright. They are the violators. "We were tricked" just doesnt seem to fly here, does it?
Finger-pointing and blaming! Used by politicians and businesses since 1257 B.C.
I'm backing your statement up, not arguing it. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The GPL (and other open source licenses) gives you rights you wouldn't otherwise have - to redistribute the source code; if you aren't following the license you don't have that right (and doing so without that right is infringement). The analogy here would be a EULA, which is taking away rights you would have by default.
In order for this to be infringement they'd need copyright on the URLs, or handwave that it's all equivalent because computers. (As opposed to merely "you aren't supposed to access this URL this way" CFAA nonsense)
To add to what you're saying, affirmatively, an argument could be made if the URL was secured or walled in some way rather than anyone can access it if they have the URL. Not to go too far, but let's compare this to Google Cache. If you didn't put something directly in line to request non-caching of data in a publicly-accessible URL, is caching it violating the rights and wants of the owner?? Absolute BS. Nonsense is a better phrase. Insert imaginary high-five thing here (as long as it's not copyrighte
Re: (Score:2)
Of course it is. Breaching the terms of a licensing agreement is copyright infringement. Just because in this case the licensing terms are "watch the content through our website which tracks you" instead of "pay us money" doesn't make it any different. It's like saying "abstaining from the requirement to distribute source code isn't copyright infringement" for a work under GPL.
What kills me on this and other things (I'll mention one below) is complete lack of knowledge that something isn't following the rules/law. You do something that seems perfectly fine (including watching commercials, in this case) and suddenly - WHAM - guilty of breaking law x, y, z, and a, b, c squared.
Another example: I go to visit a little city near where I live. I have no idea that accessing open wireless access points is illegal in that city. I go to a coffee shop and access an open access point and
Re: (Score:3)
Re:I'm not a smart person.... (Score:4, Interesting)
>"Abstaining from tracking and mining isn't copyright infringement."
Although I agree with that, the DMCA might be related to the idea [in their minds] that the user is circumventing technological controls to copyrighted content. That is probably the basis of their DMCA complaint.
However.... nothing really is being circumvented. There is no access control whatsoever- no "lock", no login, no limit on client type, no token, no enabling cookie, no IP filtering, no validation, no encryption. They are just open links to unencrypted content- which retains its copyrights AND advertisements.
I think it is a stretch too far, but I guess we wait and see. What will likely occur is that the system is dismantled and placed behind some type of access control.
Re: (Score:2)
>"Abstaining from tracking and mining isn't copyright infringement."
Although I agree with that, the DMCA might be related to the idea [in their minds] that the user is circumventing technological controls to copyrighted content. That is probably the basis of their DMCA complaint.
However.... nothing really is being circumvented. There is no access control whatsoever- no "lock", no login, no limit on client type, no token, no enabling cookie, no IP filtering, no validation, no encryption. They are just open links to unencrypted content- which retains its copyrights AND advertisements.
I think it is a stretch too far, but I guess we wait and see. What will likely occur is that the system is dismantled and placed behind some type of access control.
Hey.. we're in a recession right now. Let's go back to mindless, bottom-of-the-logic-rung DMCA BS panning, to keep out of the red until things blow over. /sigh
Re: (Score:2)
but, what's the difference? It's the same feed, correct? They don't remove commercials, nor screw with the service, so I'm at a loss other than it being a typical govt ignorance issue. They would still gather numbers from streaming info, and I would think it would boost audience numbers.
There are other comments aside from mine on this, but I have to throw it out there... Maybe that's what they're trying to do? Free mass advertising. It's the thing these days. All the cool kids are doing it, or some such BS addition to the statement.
kleptocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
You will do exactly what the kleptocrats permit you to do - and you'll call it liberty. Or you go to jail. Welcome to USA2.0.
It all started with Monopoly, the game. I don't know what trademark or copyright symbol to place after the name; please don't sue me.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess we'll find out (Score:1)
Taking the dog dish (Score:3)
But leaving the wide open food bag behind. I guess if it makes them feel better...
They probably consider watching from Linux piracy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Or even using Firefox piracy these days. Bet clearing your cookies is piracy too.
Uh, yah, duh. I registered a patent on the button with that name yesterday. So nyaaaah. Cease and freakin' desist! Man it excites me so much to say that. Oh, so that's why these corporate scumbags do what they do. Now I feel dirty. Dirty. I'm like them and it's all because I filed for a patent on a button. Not my fault! Ha. King of the world! /rolls eyes
Isn't this just marketing? (Score:3)
I had never heard of Pluto TV, but now I want to go see what it is. If only someone would post one of these forbidden links...
Re: (Score:3)
I had never heard of Pluto TV, but now I want to go see what it is. If only someone would post one of these forbidden links...
https://pluto.tv/ [pluto.tv]
And no, is not a forbiden link...
WARNING: The web page is cluncky, and the Apps track you even more than the web page. Probably the reason for them m3u8 lists.
Re: (Score:2)
https://pluto.tv/ [pluto.tv]
And no, is not a forbiden link...
WARNING:....
As I read, my eyes saw WARNING and I swear I expected the next statement to be "it might be a forbidden link...or is it? Go on. Click it. Find out. I dare ya." /grin
Re: (Score:2)
I watch it through a browser all the time for background noise.
57,000 URLs... (Score:5, Funny)
Standing? (Score:2)
How does the MPA have standing to bring the claim? Does it own rights to movies? Github should have told them to pound sand. Also, the MPA should face charges for issuing a knowingly false takedown.
Re: (Score:2)
How does the MPA have standing to bring the claim? Does it own rights to movies? Github should have told them to pound sand. Also, the MPA should face charges for issuing a knowingly false takedown.
The MPA (or was it the MPAA?) owns no copywrights of their own, but the copywright owners delegated unto them the labour of enforcing their copywrights, think of it as a sort of "power of attorney", but for movie studios, not people.
With that m3u(8?) playlist you still see the ads (Score:3)
... but you are not tracked. Having said that, a browser with privacy badger, ghostery and other similar privacy protections will/would achieve the same results.
Re: (Score:2)
I tried watching it with vlc and during the add break it just goes to a "service" screen. The cut to the ad space isn't very good on VLC and cuts out a couple of seconds of the show. But no ads.
Wow! (Score:4, Funny)
It's part of a newer breed of streaming product called free ad-supported television, or FAST.
This is awesome! Genius!
The only additional thing I'd suggest adding is some sort of massive wireless broadcast that will make it not dependent on the internet!
Re: (Score:2)
...The only additional thing I'd suggest adding is some sort of massive wireless broadcast that will make it not dependent on the internet!
The MPAA says in response that wireless and unencrypted transmissions are illegal and they are taking down all remaining artifacts of it at this time.
They also say to only watch the news about it through their website, and only through Edge or you are in violation of several laws that they will mention in their suit against you. And only if it's a Wednesday, and the first day of a month, in an odd-numbered written year, A.D., and the moment you watch it is before the moment they told you to, or you're in
Another reason (Score:2)
Not to use Github
These streams are available and if the content owners are too { dumb, lazy, or all of the above } to correct the problem, it's not the purview of the MPAA nor Github to take the content down. This is another case of overreach and naive of the MPAA to think they can shut it down.
FAST (Score:2)
"free ad-supported television"...or..."what is old is new again"
Those that grew up with OTA (over the air) television in the 1950, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s know all too well about FAST
Re: (Score:2)
Never found much to watch on Pluto.tv (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Moot point for me as I tried it and found old content that I really didn't want to re-watch. Too much new stuff to see !
...that's a repetition of old stuff. I wish I were joking.
Maybe that's the new thing to do. Come up with a butt load of cash to pay for rights, and make a new show out of an old one. Give it a new image and a very similar name. That sounds like a really hip idea! Screw originality. Requires too much brain wattage.
Pluto a "real" streaming service? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm surprised Neil DeGrasse Tyson hasn't decided that Pluto isn't a "real" streaming service and got it put out of business. ...just making a joke here...)
(Note: I actually agree with the decision on the (former) planet Pluto.
Mars is about to be excluded based on criteria. The (former) planet, not the food (and etc) corporation.
Do I really need that repo? (Score:1)
But with ublock origin it just skips the ads anyway, so why bother?
You're Welcome (Score:2, Informative)
Pluto TV? (Score:2)
Who put a camera on Pluto? Must be awfully dark anyway.
Better version (Score:2)
So, that repository was a snapshot of the m3u playlist.
There is a better one:
https://github.com/evoactivity... [github.com]
This will generate the m3u on the fly from the pluto tv service.
One more:
$ docker run -d --restart unless-stopped --name pluto-for-channels -p 8080:80 jonmaddox/pluto-for-channels
This will run a docker service, and give you a local (8080) link to get the latest version, either in m3u or xml format.
(not a lawyer, but don't share these just in case)