Who gets sued next? VLC media player? Mozilla?

[40hz]

You can't make stuff like this up. From TechDirt (link):

Anti-Piracy Group So Desperate To Go After Popcorn Time That It Threatens A Blog Software Maker
from the no,-it-doesn't-make-any-sense dept

We've seen, over the years, how copyright holders and anti-piracy organizations have continually moved up and down the stack in trying to shut off access to things they don't like. They've sued users for sharing, as well as companies and individuals who build tools that can be used for infringement, of course. Those were the obvious ones. But, lately, they've been targeting hosting providers, registrars, ISPs and ad networks as well. And, apparently, now some are so desperate that they're going after totally unrelated software providers. At least that appears to be the case in Greece, where the Greek Society for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AEPI), sent an angry threat letter to John O'Nolan, who created Ghost, an open source blogging system. Why go after Ghost? Well, apparently because one of the more popular forks of the Popcorn Time streaming system has a blog that uses Ghost. Ghost doesn't host it. Popcorn Time is just using its software. It would take one hell of a ridiculous interpretation of secondary liability to put any liability on Ghost. It would be like going after BIC because someone at Napster wrote notes using one of their pens. But such is the ridiculous state of the anti-piracy world today, where such moves seem sensible.

It may seem ridiculous, and happening in a place very far from home. But when you consider the (often kept secret) IP protection clauses in so many major trade agreements, who knows just how far such similar "legal" nonsense will someday reach?

Can you say: "Everywhere?"

[rgdot]

It would be like going after BIC because someone at Napster wrote notes using one of their pens.

  x 1000

[Renegade]

This isn't the first time for that tactic. Some people are suing a gun manufacturer. Exact same logic (or lack thereof) applied there.

[eleman]

This isn't the first time for that tactic. Some people are suing a gun manufacturer. Exact same logic (or lack thereof) applied there.

-Renegade (January 30, 2015, 06:04 PM)

Guns have just one purpose though. I believe blog software is a tad different.

Yeah, suing gun companies for specific murders is also stupid, but the analogy isn't that strong.

Guns can be used only for killing/injuring people. I haven't heard of anyone using a revolver to generate power. (Yeah I know the line "you have guns to deter others, not to actually use them." and I know the second amendment's advertised raison d'etre. But I don't believe everything I hear).

Blog software also has one purpose, but it is not crime related (at least assuming we have freedom of expression). The link between blog software and piracy is not as direct as the link between gun and murder.

But again, suing gun companies for murders is stupid.

[Renegade]

Blog software also has one purpose, but it is not crime related (at least assuming we have freedom of expression).

-eleman (January 31, 2015, 02:18 AM)

My guess is that in a few years that will ironically be some kind of unintentionally twisted prescience.

Really.

The utter insanity is so bad, that there's a reddit called /r/nottheonion. They're all "The Onion" articles, but real.

[Stoic Joker]

Guns can be used only for killing/injuring people. I haven't heard of anyone using a revolver to generate power. (Yeah I know the line "you have guns to deter others, not to actually use them." and I know the second amendment's advertised raison d'etre. But I don't believe everything I hear).

Blog software also has one purpose, but it is not crime related (at least assuming we have freedom of expression). The link between blog software and piracy is not as direct as the link between gun and murder.

-eleman (January 31, 2015, 02:18 AM)

Its' true that guns do have a bit of an image problem coming up with a second usage. But if one's intended usage is "Lawful self defense" (a mandatory checkbox on the carry permit application) as a purchase reason then it is per se, quite legal. Conversely if the blog was purchased with the sole intent of presenting one of an ever growing list of topics that are quickly becoming "exempt" from the purview of free speech...well ... Someone...someday... may find reason to start requiring a waiting period - and a bit of background checking - for those too.


Note: personally I agree with you on the distinction. But it's lines like the above that (need to) get crossed if the system (and it's right's/freedoms) we know is to be properly and completely flushed down the proverbial toilet.

[40hz]

Note: personally I agree with you on the distinction. But it's lines like the above that (need to) get crossed if the system (and it's right's/freedoms) we know is to be properly and completely flushed down the proverbial toilet.

-Stoic Joker (January 31, 2015, 07:57 AM)

I think it's gone beyond that already. Right now we're waiting for the guy with the plumber's helper to show up, do his thing, and then give it a second flush.

[Stoic Joker]

^Gee, thanks for totally crushing my feeble attempt at trying to pretend I could be at least fake being somewhat optimistic..

[40hz]

^Apologies.  But sooner or later we're all gonna have to acknowledge that a certain thing we were warned about - and possibly feared the most - has already come to pass. It's no longer a question of what or if. It's now become the far more frightening question of what to do about it.

I think the reality of our situation is getting ready to call our bluff very shortly.

Welcome to "historically interesting" times.

[Stoic Joker]

^Apologies.  

-40hz (January 31, 2015, 03:10 PM)

No need, I was actually trying to be funny (it was a sarcastic dig at my own cynicism).

Welcome to "historically interesting" times.

-40hz (January 31, 2015, 03:10 PM)

Indeed we are. And much like with Doctor Who's Weeping Angels, we're unable to look away for fear of being consumed.