PopcornTime official website is back(popcorn-time.tv)
popcorn-time.tv
PopcornTime official website is back
http://popcorn-time.tv/
79 comments
I worked on the project since the first developers left. I am the one who fixed and released all versions since 2.5. I guarentee that http://popcorn-time.tv is mine and the build are safe. Source used are https://github.com/popcorn-org/popcorn-app/releases/tag/v0.2... .
We know it is a legit fork because it is sanctioned by isra17, one of the two official developers. We know it's him because he updated the readme on his own personal github fork to lead people to this new fork [1].
The other developer (jduncanator) went completely missing, and took both the github repo and the website with him.
[1] https://github.com/isra17/popcorn-app
The other developer (jduncanator) went completely missing, and took both the github repo and the website with him.
[1] https://github.com/isra17/popcorn-app
Well, it's certainly not an exact copy of the old website; I remember that it had ASCII art of the "mascot" in the source. This one doesn't. Which is an odd difference; the new "owners" appear to be a little less cute about it.
It is because I'm using cloudflare plugin to minify everything. Source used by the server are available at https://github.com/popcorn-org/popcorn-site. Pochoclín is still present in index.html!
Exactly, and without some explanation by the maintainers of what happened this could be malicious in a number of ways (heck, they could be cooperating with authorities for all we know).
I don't think I'd ever recommend installing binaries designed for illegal file sharing
What if he/she lives in a country where popcorn time is not illegal?
I wasn't making a legal or moral judgement, but a practical one: applications designed for downloading copyrighted content disproportionately tend to contain malware.
Nonsense. For every legitimate example of such a malware-infected program you can think of or find, the community can point you to at least X others that are completely clean.
Your suggestion is not a practical one, but rather an opinionated one.
Your suggestion is not a practical one, but rather an opinionated one.
Sony rootkit?
Maybe it's because I'm on linux, but torrented content never gave me any viruses. So as far as I'm concerned, the legal stuff is more likely to infect your system with malware.
Maybe it's because I'm on linux, but torrented content never gave me any viruses. So as far as I'm concerned, the legal stuff is more likely to infect your system with malware.
> applications designed for downloading copyrighted content disproportionately tend to contain malware.
That used to be true for web browsers but IE got a major update. Now with less drive-bys and exploits.
That used to be true for web browsers but IE got a major update. Now with less drive-bys and exploits.
eli is referring to the binary downloaded from the website possibly containing malware. Not that the website might possible infect you through a drive-by-download.
Web browsers are designed to download copyrighted content, so I guess i'm missing his point.
If the source is still up one can safely compile from there no?
For very weak values of "safely". If, for example, the app has an auto-update feature, like many apps have, then they can simply push malware onto you at some point down the road. Even if they don't have an official one, it wouldn't be too hard to hide one in the code.
This one is popcorn-time.tv, the old one that is still down is http://getpopcornti.me
The last commit is "Disabled the updater", looks like someone just forked it, stopped the player from updating (presumably since it would poll a set URL they don't have control over) and launched a new website.
The last commit is "Disabled the updater", looks like someone just forked it, stopped the player from updating (presumably since it would poll a set URL they don't have control over) and launched a new website.
No, this is the new repo, and there have been several commits (and one previous release) since the original one went down: https://github.com/popcorn-org/popcorn-app
I really don't understand all this waffling. Why would you start a project like this in 2014 without considering legal responses and having prepared for them?
It's my guess that the founders did this not to create a sustainable legal business, but to get the source code out there so that anyone can fork it and create something really great from it.
As explained in the fist iteration of the product, popcorn time was an experiment to test the limits of real time technology. Look at what they've done. They received media attention, legal attention and certainly attention from the tech community. The founders have created a name for themselves and released something very cool in the process.
As explained in the fist iteration of the product, popcorn time was an experiment to test the limits of real time technology. Look at what they've done. They received media attention, legal attention and certainly attention from the tech community. The founders have created a name for themselves and released something very cool in the process.
I think it was more of a protest action than any attempt at a viable project/business. They probably did consider the legal responses and are reacting in the best possible way to get and keep people talking about.
Keep getting this: https://cloud.githubusercontent.com/assets/1090458/2602971/3...
everytime I run Popcorn time or similar clones(Time 4 popcorn, Popcorn time yify etc.). Why is this happening only with me. Infact I think it's happening with all node.js desktop apps. Any clues why is it happening?
It's best to ask this question on the node-webkit Google Group: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!forum/node-webkit
[deleted](1)
Has the repo been moved from here?
https://github.com/popcorn-team/popcorn-app
The link on the website points to https://github.com/popcorn-org/popcorn-app
Yes I was the previous owner of popcorn-team, but for some reason the other owner kicked everyone before closing the repo and the website. popcorn-org and popcorn-time.tv are the new project I maintain.
This always confuses me. Is it legal to stream movies in US using torrents? meaning can I use popcorn-time.tv in US without any legal issues?
IANAL but from my experience people get in trouble for sharing (or uploading) the copyrighted material (but not downloading per se). Not sure if this happens due to some law or because of the tracking/software limitations.
Basically, if you use a torrent client to download a movie, it is in your interest to not upload/seed it because that's when you get caught (usually).
Because Popcorn app forces you to seed the movie, it is clearly illegal in the US and will get you in trouble if you can't hide your tracks.
PS: It is legal to share/stream/upload your own content. As long as it doesn't violate some other law.
Basically, if you use a torrent client to download a movie, it is in your interest to not upload/seed it because that's when you get caught (usually).
Because Popcorn app forces you to seed the movie, it is clearly illegal in the US and will get you in trouble if you can't hide your tracks.
PS: It is legal to share/stream/upload your own content. As long as it doesn't violate some other law.
How is this not a honeypot for copyright lawsuit generators?
It's up and running for me.
cuevana.tv has a fork that has support for tv series (not all).
This is a clone, not the official site.
A radical solution, I know, but why not just pay for your content? And, if it's not available at the right price/format/location, find other content?
And, to those saying "This is for non-copyright/author approved stuff", I say "I was not born yesterday".
And, to those saying "This is for non-copyright/author approved stuff", I say "I was not born yesterday".
"Find other content" is pretty easy to say if you are living in the so called "first world" where there's lots of content available.
You do have archive.orgs entire collection of public domain works available. I'm pretty sure it would take a lifetime or more to just consume all those.
And personally, I spend sparing time looking at art on deviantart from the some hundred or so artists I follow, listening to the music and podcasts I follow on bandcamp / rss, watching youtube videos, and read the books and novels of authors from all over the Internet that publish their works online. Plenty of stuff to occupy oneself with.
Not trying to argue in the OPs favor, just saying inherent to an Internet connection is access to effectively infinite material.
And personally, I spend sparing time looking at art on deviantart from the some hundred or so artists I follow, listening to the music and podcasts I follow on bandcamp / rss, watching youtube videos, and read the books and novels of authors from all over the Internet that publish their works online. Plenty of stuff to occupy oneself with.
Not trying to argue in the OPs favor, just saying inherent to an Internet connection is access to effectively infinite material.
You're looking for a simple answer. There isn't one. Depriving someone of revenue or profit is way different than depriving them of physical property; as such, intellectual property "theft" doesn't carry the same stigma as theft in meat space.
In short, you steal because you don't want to pay or you can't pay (either not available in your market or you don't have the money).
In short, you steal because you don't want to pay or you can't pay (either not available in your market or you don't have the money).
I understand your point of finding other content, but usually people don't think that way. From a logical point of view it seems trivial, but psychologically it's different.
One thing is peer pressure. People want to watch what their friends are watching, because they want to be able to discuss about the last movie or the last episode of a series.
Another thing is that when someone wants to watch something, he is not casually browsing for any content, but wants to see something specific. Trailers and commercial do a really good job to captivate the interest of people. The effect, though, is that they will want to see that exact content, no matter how.
One thing is peer pressure. People want to watch what their friends are watching, because they want to be able to discuss about the last movie or the last episode of a series.
Another thing is that when someone wants to watch something, he is not casually browsing for any content, but wants to see something specific. Trailers and commercial do a really good job to captivate the interest of people. The effect, though, is that they will want to see that exact content, no matter how.
> One thing is peer pressure. People want to watch what their friends are watching, because they want to be able to discuss about the last movie or the last episode of a series.
I agree with you, but I don't think "peer pressure" is the right way of stating it. It's more about existing in the same social context. It's also why a lot of people's conceptions of poverty are often far too limited. Poverty isn't just about not having money for food or shelter – you can have both and still be poor. It's about not being able to exist in that same realm as your peers.
I agree with you, but I don't think "peer pressure" is the right way of stating it. It's more about existing in the same social context. It's also why a lot of people's conceptions of poverty are often far too limited. Poverty isn't just about not having money for food or shelter – you can have both and still be poor. It's about not being able to exist in that same realm as your peers.
[deleted]
If what you are looking for is not available, too hard to use, of a bad quality and/or cost too much you will turn to an alternative that is free, fast, easy to use even if is illegal. If you perceive that what are you doing is not actively harming anyone.
It's like if you are running around town looking for a parking spot. You find a place where you could park your car, it's not bothering anyone and doesn't block anyone and anything else it just isn't marked.
If you have a cheap real parking near, you probably wouldn't park in the unmarked spot. But if the first legal alternative is 5 miles away, a private parking charging you 10 bucks every hour, a maximum 5 minutes parking then you probably stop in the unmarked spot.
It's legal ? No. It's actively bothering anyone other than the policeman writing you the ticket if he finds out ? No. You hope that they won't find out, and won't write you a ticket ? of course you do.
It's like if you are running around town looking for a parking spot. You find a place where you could park your car, it's not bothering anyone and doesn't block anyone and anything else it just isn't marked.
If you have a cheap real parking near, you probably wouldn't park in the unmarked spot. But if the first legal alternative is 5 miles away, a private parking charging you 10 bucks every hour, a maximum 5 minutes parking then you probably stop in the unmarked spot.
It's legal ? No. It's actively bothering anyone other than the policeman writing you the ticket if he finds out ? No. You hope that they won't find out, and won't write you a ticket ? of course you do.
And the other upside is your usage of the metaphorical parking spot doesn't stop anyone else from using it too. It is like infinite free questionable parking, or limited gated private parking with an hourly rate and those terrible parallel spots when they could have just made them perpendicular but want to make you hate the experience.
(I think the analogy might be getting overloaded at this point)
(I think the analogy might be getting overloaded at this point)
Certain content is unavailable for weeks/months in Australia, and certain distribution networks (e.g. Netflix) do not operate in Australia.
Sure you can use a VPN and hack around a way to use Netflix, but that's a lesser experience than that offered by Popcorn Time.
(I don't use either, I cry.)
Sure you can use a VPN and hack around a way to use Netflix, but that's a lesser experience than that offered by Popcorn Time.
(I don't use either, I cry.)
From Oz and we use Netflix (using VPN). It works fine.
From India, Netflix will probably arrive in 2050.
A radical solution, I know, but why not just pay for flying over someones land? And, if your destination is not available through another route at the right price/format, just take the bus?
People do. They're called "overflight fees". Often they're waived by mutually beneficial consent. For example, the USA often charges them when a flight doesn't originate or end in the US, but passes over US airspace.
Next bizarre justification for benefiting from other peoples' commercial work without paying?
Next bizarre justification for benefiting from other peoples' commercial work without paying?
Your mistake is assuming there needs to be a justification.
Not all Torrent users are a menace to society. I pay for my content, all of it.
But the speed and UX of this app is quite obviously the next stage of evolution for the movie business.
Sorry but I'm tired of overpriced popcorn and people slurping sodas next to me in the theater. I think Big Movie need to be forced into action and an app like PT makes "C&D letters" less and less of an option.
But the speed and UX of this app is quite obviously the next stage of evolution for the movie business.
Sorry but I'm tired of overpriced popcorn and people slurping sodas next to me in the theater. I think Big Movie need to be forced into action and an app like PT makes "C&D letters" less and less of an option.
Interesting. So your point is a) I want to see the latest movies the moment they are released therefore waiting for other legal ways like iTunes/Google Now etc aren't interesting but b) I don't want to do in a theatre. I hadn't really thought of that subgroup.
I submit to you this: http://theoatmeal.com/comics/movie_theater_layout
Two thumbs up! (wha wha wha)
I'm also part of that sub-group. I absolutely despise going to the theater. In fact, I've toyed with the idea of of opening a theater with enforced etiquette, but ultimately determined that there was not sufficient demand.
Since I do not think the value proposition of piracy is in my favor, I simply do without recently released content. However, if it existed in an easy to use home view capacity, I would definitely pay for it.
Since I do not think the value proposition of piracy is in my favor, I simply do without recently released content. However, if it existed in an easy to use home view capacity, I would definitely pay for it.
Alamo Draft House has this exact policy and is thriving: https://drafthouse.com/
Because they don't offer content for sale anymore. You can rent it for the same price you used to buy it for though, if you submit to some pretty onerous restrictions, the occasional rootkit, and DRM, and give up any hope of owning what you bought. Is that the radical solution you're referring to?
if it's not available at the right price/format/location, find other content?
You ask why not, but it's you who are trying to define limits to action, so it's you who should justify why.
You ask why not, but it's you who are trying to define limits to action, so it's you who should justify why.
Because it's private property, and the owner says you can't have it.
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
So that's why. Now explain to me why you're exempt from that? You're knowingly benefiting from someone else breaking their word. How are you not acting immorally?
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
So that's why. Now explain to me why you're exempt from that? You're knowingly benefiting from someone else breaking their word. How are you not acting immorally?
Because it's private property, and the owner says you can't have it.
The owner can say whatever he or she wants. I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
It wasn't an agreement, they are terms set by an unjust monopoly that rests upon force. I consider it no more unfair than eating the salt collected during the Salt March.
The owner can say whatever he or she wants. I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.
Every single person who has legitimate access to it has given the owner something in return for a license to use the product, with the agreement that they're not going to share it with other people.
It wasn't an agreement, they are terms set by an unjust monopoly that rests upon force. I consider it no more unfair than eating the salt collected during the Salt March.
> I can say you owe me money for reading my posts (which, by the way, are also under copyright!). That doesn't make it wrong for you to not pay it.
Reading? No (you agreed to allow your comments to be read when you posted them). Using your comments elsewhere without attribution? Yes. You never agreed to that.
And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
Reading? No (you agreed to allow your comments to be read when you posted them). Using your comments elsewhere without attribution? Yes. You never agreed to that.
And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
And it was an agreement, and no it was not unjust. Yes, it is a monopoly, and no it doesn't rest on force, but does that matter?
It does rest on force. People who refuse to accept the imposed rules can go to jail. And that does matter to me.
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
Of course not. If I thought that I'd be suing or somehow forcing the copyright holders to give me copies of their work. I'm not entitled to anything, I'm merely accepting what is being shared with me. It's the other copyright (and patent) holders who think they are entitled to have special protections paid for by the rest of society.
By the way, they might call it property, but that concept only makes sense as a system for dealing with scarce, rivalrous goods. In this case, it's nothing but a marketing term.
It does rest on force. People who refuse to accept the imposed rules can go to jail. And that does matter to me.
You don't have to have every song or movie that's ever been made. You are not entitled to them unless you strike an agreement with the owner of the property.
Of course not. If I thought that I'd be suing or somehow forcing the copyright holders to give me copies of their work. I'm not entitled to anything, I'm merely accepting what is being shared with me. It's the other copyright (and patent) holders who think they are entitled to have special protections paid for by the rest of society.
By the way, they might call it property, but that concept only makes sense as a system for dealing with scarce, rivalrous goods. In this case, it's nothing but a marketing term.
You're a radical who doesn't accept the common premise of private property.
So would a slave owner say to the abolitionist.
I accept private property, when it's justified by reality, not when it's imposed for the profit of a few minorities.
I accept private property, when it's justified by reality, not when it's imposed for the profit of a few minorities.
No, you on't accept private property, because if you did then you'd honor agreements made with regard to said private property, instead of spew this entitled bullshit.
Your arrogance literally makes me want to vomit.
Your arrogance literally makes me want to vomit.
popcorn time listed on www.createsetgo.com in entertainment section - it is a social network for consumers looking to plug into the latest & greatest ideas - hope the connecting with the end users helps your BETA. cheers!
"@mediatemple hey they cloned our site getpopcornti.me in http://getpopcorntime.com - they linked some downloads as virus - watch out!" - https://twitter.com/getpopcornapp/status/442519692067241984