I think software devs need to get used to the fact that if the app they are designing is primarily used to facilitate or encourage piracy, then these type of takedowns are going to happen.
The screenshots of the applications clearly showed copyrighted works being pirated. Just because free works are available doesn't mean that's its primary purpose.
Here is a little fact; you are not that clever and the rest of the world is not that stupid. Save your strawman arguments. If movies are released by content creators for free they will release them via channels you can access.
if you can't access them; tough. No one said you had a right to content.
Or, they could release them via BT, and then people using this service can watch them ala Netflix. This is, currently, a channel we can access--indeed, one perhaps preferable to one of the "official" mechanisms.
Then again, who would help the poor, embattled movie publishing houses? I hear they're barely getting by these days.
There's a difference between not sharing a secret and sharing a secret but requiring the person you shared it with to not share it. The first requires only self discipline, the second requires a club.
Sure. I dislike the company i work for, and would love to disseminate their proprietary software. I appreciate you wanting to be complicit in the crime we are about to commit. What email address should I send it to?
It has nothing to do with what the program is used for. It is the idea that simply hosting code that could be used to do something illegal with is itself illegal. This isn't a piracy or copyright debate, it's a freedom of speech debate.
I didn't say FoS was absolute. That's why it's an interesting debate. But the piracy part of it is fairly irrelevant when it comes to the question, "Is it illegal to host code that can be used for illegal purposes"?
Correction: we should never get used to it.. what they are doing is wrong.. the transport have nothing to do with the thing being transported.. is like to destroying a road just because some truck with drugs was found using the road.. despite the road can be use to transport families in vacations.. can be, and was created with good uses in mind
Its a complete non-sense
And its only "usual", because governments are in bed with corporations.. we should never get used to this sort of situation.. it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits
If they want to fight the free distribution of the material they create.. fine.. we cant argue against that.. the law should protect their interests (puting somebody in prison for it.. definetely not)
But destroy projects that can serve for a lot of good purposes(education, indie movies, a decentralized youtube), its just madness to let them do this, and just "get used to it"
Edit: This is one of those times that you understand that governements dont work for their people best interests, but for the corporations best interest against the greater good.. this goes against all the reasons democratic institutions were created for
> it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits
This rhetoric is a bit silly. Companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars making a movie, and wanting to protect their investment by not allowing free copies on the internet is not "greedy people wanting to burn the world."
There isn't any copyright-infringing material hosted on those repositories. How can such a takedown request be taken seriously? I'm no copyright-guru but this smells murky.
The text of the notice states, "Attached as Exhibit A is a series of screenshots taken from within the applications of each Project that includes images of copyrighted works available through the Projects"
In other words, the notice seems to be based on the idea that because copyrighted works are available through the application, the application is an appropriate target for a takedown notice, on the basis of some screenshots.
I could take a screenshot of their screenshot and issue a DMCA takedown request against Windows. Unfortunately, the DMCA is set up to encourage inmediate compliance with unsubstantiated claims for anyone witnout Microsoft-level legal. That doesn't mean it will stick, and I bet Popcorn Time will be back soon.
^^ This is exactly why you are supremely unqualified to understand or debate the issue. Honestly. Your comment was simply stupid.
The takedown request was not because the screenshots are copyrighted. That is not the infringement. If you don't understand that then you might want to read a bit more before becoming involved with the grown-ups.
Please don't launch into personal attacks (at least not as crude as these). If you have a point to make, reason through it, post your sources, and debate properly.
I'm sorry you saw it that way. I think the DMCA is flawed to the point where crude requests are complied with. I would be happy to respond if you tell me what you disagree with.
No, by the same logic that's like trying to ban a DVD player that is only capable of playing illegal material.
Popcorn Time only sources torrents from illegal sources i.e. does not have significant non-infringing utility.
That's where the distinction comes in.
If it was similarly limited to only play legal material (or even indiscriminately play material from a source that contains both) this would never have been an issue.
I know 'MUH FREEDUMS' is pretty big around here but the fact is that this was rather blatantly illegal and takedown should be expected. Their website explicitly and exclusively shows content that they do not own: http://www.time4popcorn.eu/
I've been searching around, and I haven't come across anything that says you can use DMCA takedowns on anything other than works that you own the copyright to. So, while it might well be illegal under some law to host the code of Popcorn Time, I don't see how a DMCA takedown notice from the MPAA, which does not own the copyright to Popcorn Time, can be valid here. But IANAL, and I also don't know if there is some provision in the DMCA that covers this.
You are if the video player finds copyright DVDs and then delivers them to your door without the permission of the content creator. So yes. Stop being absurd.
Actually, if you look into the DeCSS debacle, this was an early test of the DMCA. A Windows software DVD player leaked its' keys, and this was used to create a small bit of code that broke the DVD CSS DRM scheme.
Of course, you have never used any software that rips DVDs into video files, but if you had, it would almost definitely be based on this code, which was printed on t-shirts as a means of distribution.
That's actually one of the most reasonable takedowns I've ever seen on github. It was clearly written by a human (ignoring the boilerplate) who had bothered to actually look at the project and at how git[hub] operates ("forks", "branches").
Normally it's just a long list of URLs flagged by a bot then sent without ever having a human look at it.
Yes, it's very well written, except for the only sentence that matters, which is a completely unsubstantiated claim of infringement that has nothing to do with the rest of the letter.
Perhaps the spent some extra time making this look pretty because they anticipated a bit of scrutiny?
A interesting code as speech issue could be made here for sure. Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright. I don't think github will fight this, they probably on't want to pick a battle with some of the most monied legal interests around, but I sure wish they would.
Except we all know it is. Just like I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for.
IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.
the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.
In sane jurisdictions lockpicks are perfectly legal for everyone (not just licensed locksmiths) because, although people people may claim that "we all know what they are for", tools should not be illegal just because they can be used for something illegal.
Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.
You could take down the pirate bay legally because most of its use as a search engine is for illegal content.
Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream.
Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs.
Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal.
It's not a slippery slope at all. It's quite clear cut.
If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.
Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.
As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
You seem to miss that this project is based on three legal programs: a search engine, a torrent client and a media player. What next, ban search engines from displaying illegal content?
The basis of the components do not matter. We make judgements on the whole.
In the UK a shotgun is simply a series of tubes with some minor metallic parts. Does not mean because tubes and hammers are legal you are allowed to build one and own it.
Seriously; this is like arguing with a child. Stick to technology and leave the law to actual lawyers and Judges. You don't have the reasoning for it.
You seem to miss that this project is based on three legal programs: a search engine, a torrent client and a media player. What next, ban search engines from displaying illegal content?
I guess the question is should the makers of lockpicks be punished for how they are used (or for that matter be stopped from distributing their lockpicks). There are plenty of commercially available products that can be use for illegal activities but we don't prevent them from being sold (let alone given away for free)
> I theoretically could use a set of lockpicks for something other than picking locks. But we both know what they are for.
We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry.
By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.
Actually it shouldn't. It has been proven that the only use of Popcorn Time is to facilitate copyright infringement.
It is designed explicitly for that use. Hence banned.
Mainly because Judges are not stupid and Developers are not as clever as they think they are. Good with math sure; not so good with the finer points of the law despite their astoundingly arrogant perception of themselves.
It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense.
It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s.
It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do.
It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information.
"Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player.
Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.
It is common sense that pedestrians should stay out of streets. And for many years in the UK the pedestrian had the right of way; right up until a Judge was smart enough to realise it is easier for a pedestrian not to step into high moving traffic than it is for a 2000 kilogram lump of metal hurtling along at 30-40MPH to accomodate such idiots.
So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.
It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.
It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.
Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense.
As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled).
You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.
Yes. Unless you think someone should be allowed to post videos of themselves breaking into your house and raping your family?
A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
Really? You advocate pulling down a video about what is effectively a debugging technique, just because the case study is breaking some DRM?
Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously.
"a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.
Is your argument that certain crimes are not crimes in your eyes?
You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?
That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.
Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...
> Just because one of the effects (even the main effect) of the software is facilitating copyright violations, doesn't mean that the code itself is violating any copyright.
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as what the law is currently, I think you are wrong.
The takedown notice cites MGM vs Grokster [0] which held as follows:
> One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24.
That case used 3 elements to determine whether the defendant had "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement":
1. That defendant "aim[ed] to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement"
2. Did not develop filtering tools
3. That defendants had a motive (advertising revenue) to increase the use of the software
From my armchair, elements 1 and 2 seem identical to MGM vs Grokster. Popcorn Time has a plausible argument on the third element, but who knows really. This is a question to put before a federal judge.
We could all argue for ages about the legality of such action, but we all know what popcorn time is for : browsing and viewing copyrighted material.
The real issue is the current state of copyright law, created from an obsolete model and then molded through intensive lobbying from the interested parties.
It was said thousands of times, and we will probably need to say it thousands of times more to get this to change.
Unfortunately, it looks like it is impossible to use Popcorn Time for any non infringing purposes. You can't add other trackers and it seems to filter out torrents that aren't from popular movie/tv piracy release groups. The screenshots and the software's tagline that "they want to make the experience of watching torrent movies as simple as possible" support the argument that they are aiming to satisfy a known source of demand for infringement.
The only case that could be defensible is that Popcorn Time is developed as a proof of concept and is not intended for actual use. I still don't think it would qualify because the use of Popcorn time as a way to stream movies is more "commercially significant" than any other use.
I absolutely love that the majority of this thread are claiming all sorts of legal protections for Popcorn Time - all the way from free speech to ludicrous comparisons with screenshotting screenshots.
So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all...
"The law is wrong and archaic!"
Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron.
One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff?
Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.
I dont steal content I didn't pay for. I have never used popcorn time! yet I am upset that the DMCA is applied here against code.
Surely if they have a copyright claim to the code they can issue it, but issuing a copyright claim based on the actions of a software user is a BIG stretch to me. Has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.
91 comments
[ 2.8 ms ] story [ 98.7 ms ] threadI could take a screenshot of VLC clearly showing me watching a pirated movie. What's your point?
Here is a little fact; you are not that clever and the rest of the world is not that stupid. Save your strawman arguments. If movies are released by content creators for free they will release them via channels you can access.
if you can't access them; tough. No one said you had a right to content.
Then again, who would help the poor, embattled movie publishing houses? I hear they're barely getting by these days.
Keep up the good work stealing other people's efforts.
What other tools can you think of that can replace github and make censorship impossible?
Feel free to send me all of the proprietary data at your workplace since you care nothing about copyright. Or just post it all to Pastebin.
They should just admit that they like piracy, nothing wrong with that.
Correction: we should never get used to it.. what they are doing is wrong.. the transport have nothing to do with the thing being transported.. is like to destroying a road just because some truck with drugs was found using the road.. despite the road can be use to transport families in vacations.. can be, and was created with good uses in mind
Its a complete non-sense
And its only "usual", because governments are in bed with corporations.. we should never get used to this sort of situation.. it hurts our civil liberties foundations to the core.. just because some greed people want to burn the world to get the last drop of profits
If they want to fight the free distribution of the material they create.. fine.. we cant argue against that.. the law should protect their interests (puting somebody in prison for it.. definetely not)
But destroy projects that can serve for a lot of good purposes(education, indie movies, a decentralized youtube), its just madness to let them do this, and just "get used to it"
Edit: This is one of those times that you understand that governements dont work for their people best interests, but for the corporations best interest against the greater good.. this goes against all the reasons democratic institutions were created for
This rhetoric is a bit silly. Companies spending hundreds of millions of dollars making a movie, and wanting to protect their investment by not allowing free copies on the internet is not "greedy people wanting to burn the world."
You can use a knife to make food, or to kill somebody.. its the same as forbidden knifes because somebody use it with bad intentions..
Its just fight the pirated movies to be copied for free.. not the tool.. thats my main argument
Im not against their rights.. im against that they have rights to take my rights
In other words, the notice seems to be based on the idea that because copyrighted works are available through the application, the application is an appropriate target for a takedown notice, on the basis of some screenshots.
Maybe I'll issue a takedown notice for https://github.com/chromium/chromium and attach some screenshots of YouTube video listings.
The takedown request was not because the screenshots are copyrighted. That is not the infringement. If you don't understand that then you might want to read a bit more before becoming involved with the grown-ups.
I don't need a source to prove it. The comment speaks for itself.
How about you explain which parts of your comment were intelligent?
Popcorn Time only sources torrents from illegal sources i.e. does not have significant non-infringing utility.
That's where the distinction comes in.
If it was similarly limited to only play legal material (or even indiscriminately play material from a source that contains both) this would never have been an issue.
I know 'MUH FREEDUMS' is pretty big around here but the fact is that this was rather blatantly illegal and takedown should be expected. Their website explicitly and exclusively shows content that they do not own: http://www.time4popcorn.eu/
Buy the way, the fact that they're "copyright" is irrelevant. Every new work, including ever Creative Commons license work is copyrighted.
Of course, you have never used any software that rips DVDs into video files, but if you had, it would almost definitely be based on this code, which was printed on t-shirts as a means of distribution.
Normally it's just a long list of URLs flagged by a bot then sent without ever having a human look at it.
Perhaps the spent some extra time making this look pretty because they anticipated a bit of scrutiny?
IT communities seem to think Judges are stupid or that the actions of general crowd are somehow excused by the niche applications of a technology. That is not the way society or common sense works.
the 'we all know it is' argument holds no legal water. the law must be enumerated and explicit, providing guidelines for responsible behavior and drawing lines which one must cross in order to be in violation of the law.
Lockpicks typically only become illegal when illegal intent can be proved in that particular case. This is as it should be.
Of course you would also have to take down torrent client repository because most people torrent illegal content. We know that most people who DOWNLOAD videos get copyrighted material because free to watch videos are usually available to stream.
Technically you could then take down Media Player Classic repository. Of course it just facilitates watching torrents and bootlegged DVDs.
Popcorn time is literally bittorrent + media player + search engine. It's just a convenient package. And as we've shown all of those things are illegal.
Do you see how slippery the slope is?
Perhaps there is a reason for this?
If a shop was distributing fenced goods or human traffic we wouldn't allow it to remain in business because they also distribute free and legitimate groceries.
Do you see how slippery the slope is? You have left from the tiny tiny tiny niche use of file transfer for free content to the massive industrious downloading of intellectual property.
As long as you are still being paid your salary though...easy to have a faux-morally superior position when it is not your efforts being ripped off.
In the UK a shotgun is simply a series of tubes with some minor metallic parts. Does not mean because tubes and hammers are legal you are allowed to build one and own it.
Seriously; this is like arguing with a child. Stick to technology and leave the law to actual lawyers and Judges. You don't have the reasoning for it.
We don't know whether they're for the purposes of robbery, professional locksmithing, sport, or education. So no, we don't both know that they're for illegitimate purposes, which is the relevant distinction (as opposed to "are they for picking locks or not" which is neither here nor there, although it's a piece of misdirection which would do a prosecuting attorney proud). Thankfully, neither legislators nor judges are that willfully obtuse. In all but 4 states of the US, lockpicks are not prima facie illegal for unlicensed citizens to carry.
http://lockwiki.com/index.php/Legal_issues
By this very analogy popcorntime should be legal to create, legal to host, legal to download, legal to possess, and illegal to use for piracy. As it should be.
It is designed explicitly for that use. Hence banned.
Mainly because Judges are not stupid and Developers are not as clever as they think they are. Good with math sure; not so good with the finer points of the law despite their astoundingly arrogant perception of themselves.
It's that "common sense" is more a function of good advertising than, you know, what actually makes sense.
It's "common sense" that pedestrians should stay out of streets--except that that was the result of careful lobbying by auto makers in the early 1900s.
It's "common sense" decades ago that cigarettes didn't cause harm to anyone --except that they do.
It's "common sense" that piracy is tantamount to theft--except that copying a file does not deprive the original owner of their information.
"Common sense" is a tired refrain used by people who are either too narrow-minded to actually think through policies or who are shilling for a larger player.
Maybe you should start thinking critically about why things are the way they are and whether or not that's actually necessary--after all, that's just common sense.
So now, the law is balanced again. Pedestrians are given safe crossing points but the roads belong to vehicles.
It was never common sense that cigarettes didn't cause harm. It was a lack of medical research.
It is common sense that piracy is theft. You the deprivation argument is utter bullshit. Otherwise you won't mind if I make copies of all of your house keys; car keys and private documentation. After all; I am not depriving you of the originals and they are just a series of atoms. No biggie.
Seriously; just grow up.
http://greatergreaterwashington.org/post/19962/when-we-lost-...
Roads didn't "belong" to vehicles--in fact, it was generally considered that the driver of the larger vehicle in an accident was at fault, which is common sense.
As for cigarettes, consider the old ads:
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1848212_17...
As for piracy--look, taking my keys (even to make a copy) requires the temporary loss of access to them, whereas with files it does not. Arguments against copyright infringement cannot hang on stealing, because it is plainly not stealing: instead, you have to construct them as being about the infringement on somebody's right to control access to their works (which is a bit more subtle, and far from settled).
You need to read more and talk less, and maybe you'll learn something. I don't blame you for being brainwashed by the societal norms these days, but if you want to be taken seriously you need to google your way to success.
I suppose that says it all! What a brilliant demonstration of exactly why you should be ignored.
Keep up the good work, you are a fine example of modern reasoning.
1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5VlvrlTNmM
A crime is a crime. That's it. If you don't like copyright then advocate it's removal but we live in a consensus based society so if you lose you shut up about it.
Also, you continually compare this to physical crimes, some banal (theft) and other repugnant (rape); in doing so, you cheapen your arguments and make your point, however defensible, unable to be taken seriously.
"a crime is a crime" is a tautology and cannot be reasoned with or discussed in any useful fashion. Your claim about "consensus-based society" is also plainly false, considering the forms of government in most of the West and even a cursory glance through history.
You must see how that is completely incompatible with any functioning society. You have decided arbitrarily, in opposition to the majority of society according to our legal and civic models, that you are going to ignore the law regarding DRM?
That is fine. But you would be the first to call the police if people decided to ignore the law and it negatively impacted you. Your hypocritcal attitude is equalling breathtaking and juvenile.
Ultimately you believe "the law should stand except when I want something; then I should be allowed to steal it because the internetz and copyright is slaveries and yada yada...
Honestly. Grow up.
I'm not a lawyer, but as far as what the law is currently, I think you are wrong.
The takedown notice cites MGM vs Grokster [0] which held as follows:
> One who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, going beyond mere distribution with knowledge of third-party action, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties using the device, regardless of the device’s lawful uses. Pp. 10—24.
That case used 3 elements to determine whether the defendant had "clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement":
1. That defendant "aim[ed] to satisfy a known source of demand for copyright infringement"
2. Did not develop filtering tools
3. That defendants had a motive (advertising revenue) to increase the use of the software
From my armchair, elements 1 and 2 seem identical to MGM vs Grokster. Popcorn Time has a plausible argument on the third element, but who knows really. This is a question to put before a federal judge.
[0] http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-480.ZS.html
The real issue is the current state of copyright law, created from an obsolete model and then molded through intensive lobbying from the interested parties.
It was said thousands of times, and we will probably need to say it thousands of times more to get this to change.
The only case that could be defensible is that Popcorn Time is developed as a proof of concept and is not intended for actual use. I still don't think it would qualify because the use of Popcorn time as a way to stream movies is more "commercially significant" than any other use.
So you guys love the law - right up until Crawford posted MGM vs Grokster as the binding ruling and now suddenly it's all...
"The law is wrong and archaic!"
Honestly. You sound like teenagers throwing a tantrum. Just grow up and admit you want to steal content you didn't pay for. I would have a lot more respect for you than you. When you try and justify it you sound like a moron.
One poster below even went so far as to insinuate theft is OK because the movie publishing houses have so much money. Is that the standard we apply is it? If a company is successful it becomes OK to pirate their stuff?
Moron. Downvote away, it doesn't make the attitude any less moronic.
Surely if they have a copyright claim to the code they can issue it, but issuing a copyright claim based on the actions of a software user is a BIG stretch to me. Has nothing to do with a sense of entitlement.
The end.