Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
pwg
Karellen
> So of course they try to abuse the DMCA as best they can to claw back those lost profits.
Classic "felony contempt of business model" play
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2019/06/felony-contempt-busine...
xattt
Does this mean that adblockers will be seen as piracy tools in the near future?
pjc50
People have been making the "adblocking is piracy because it interferes with monetization" argument for years. As with all these questions, the detail of "be seen as X by whom exactly" matters.
tarotuser
I make a point not to argue with stupid people. And instead, everybody I help with their computer, I show them adblockers, paywall bypassers, anti-trackers, and other user-enabling tech.
Computers act against the intentions of most people because they're not aware of their choices. So I help show them what is available and to use them.
The anti-adblocker crowd is just plain stupid. And from being a system engineer for many years, you can't fix stupid.
izzydata
I don't see how that can even be possible to argue for. If I close my eyes and put earplugs in when an ad is playing is that piracy? It's no different than blanking out an ad that my own personal computer is receiving when I don't feel like viewing or listening to something on it.
By the same logic if I don't feel like having my own computer send someone else's computer some metadata about my viewing experience then there is nothing they can do about it. My computer, my rules.
tpmoney
> If I close my eyes and put earplugs in when an ad is playing is that piracy?
There’s certainly a not unreasonable argument that it is if you agreed to watch ads in exchange for getting something. If you do a project for me and I agree to pay you after I receive your invoice and then stop accepting mail, refuse all emails, ignore all phone calls, run away from you when I see you in person and otherwise do everything possible to prevent myself from receiving your invoice, wouldn’t you consider that theft of services?
That isn’t to say I think all ad blocking is theft of services, nor to say that something like broadcasting with ads constitutes an agreement or even that abuse of ads in such an agreement wouldn’t justify blocking ads. Just that the argument is not unreasonable
folio
> If I close my eyes and put earplugs in when an ad is playing is that piracy?
See: https://www.iflscience.com/eyetracking-moviepass-app-will-pa...
garyfirestorm
That makes my pi-hole……..a bank?
hermannj314
Of course! The ad blocker is creating an uninspired derivative of a copyrightable work. Piracy!
Beldin
For those who didn't read the article: Github took down the git of am .m3u file.
That file is a playlist format, and contains links, no content itself. The links are to places where the stream is legally made available. Main difference is the tracking embedded in the site/app via which the MPA would like you to view the content.
Not sure why Github caved - doesn't seem reasonably needed on the face of it...
pwg
> Not sure why Github caved - doesn't seem reasonably needed on the face of it...
Because the US DMCA gives them little choice otherwise. If they receive a DMCA request that looks real [1], the DMCA leaves little room for the site to do anything other than take down the content. The content owner would need to file a DMCA counter claim (which is part of the DMCA process) after-which Github can legally restore the content without also taking on possible copyright liability.
[1] and a DMCA from the MPA will likely look very real and properly correct on its face.
chii
> The content owner would need to file a DMCA counter claim
how difficult is it to make a counter-claim in cases like these (which, i think, is a legitimate counter-claim)?
pwg
Not difficult at all, but the counter claim has to come from the owner of the github repo, not just anyone.
And we don't know what is in the mind of the repo owner, so we have no idea why no counter has been filed.
toast0
They do have a choice. If they follow the DMCA process, they have a safe harbor; if they don't they can be a party to an infringement claim.
It makes the most business sense to just follow the process in most cases, IMHO; but they can take a risk if they want.
meltyness
Look, the developers went serverless, so now they don't have servers anymore they just have a monolithic website/app ecosystem, and any other access or attempted access is illegal systems intrusion, because they said so.
Never mind the massive Lazy Susan Scheme of unicast cloud bandwidth, collusion, and Berkshire Hathaway's money this whole activity entails.
MarkG509
And they've done it before[1], about a year ago. This used to be a great source for free (not illegal) content, though it was clear that some links were bad.
[1] Now disabled: https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv
ct0
How sad, when the pandemic was roaring this was my go to!
ynniv
This is not a valid application of the DMCA. URLs aren't covered by the DMCA unless they point to infringing content (Pluto TV has distribution rights) or circumvention technology.
https://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/linking-copyrighted-materia...
Cenk
Google Cache still has a copy: https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:DrNxtm...
ccooffee
It looks like archive.is backed up from that cache as well: https://archive.is/x7Gfz
grishka
They're doing geo-blocking because that site just says "This feature is coming soon. We’re currently working on it! Thanks for your patience." for me. It probably only works in the US aka the default country. The stream URLs probably work worldwide. They don't want people watching US TV outside of the US because reasons.
eschneider
The reason is that they probably have distribution rights for the US/North America, so if they're streaming to other locations, they can be sued. So they need to at least appear to be 'taking steps to prevent' such things.
mbreese
Another potential reason is that they may want to have some kind of other user tracking to measure the effectiveness of their ads. Either way though, they could have handled this on the server side and made this much easier. It’s hard to complain when the server refuses a connection because $business_reasons. That would be fine. Blocking due to Geo-IP, a required Pluto client, etc would make sense. But that can all be handled with a technical solution.
But a DMCA takedown for a list of URLs just seems so heavy handed and wrong. It’s like they only know one way to solve a problem. Or they have too many lawyers.
Not to mention - why did the MPA do this as opposed to Paramount?
Cthulhu_
Doesn't Paramount pay the MPA (or is a member thereof) to do it for them? That would make sense to me.
qwytw
I think it's available in most of Western Europe and Latin America.
MarkG509
Linux Mint comes with Hypnotix that contains free feeds for 974 TV channels world-wide, and 171 US-En Movie channels. Of these are nearly all of Pluto TV's channels, many of the free movie channels available on Roku, and even a few channels I can get over the air.
Given my browser's built-in privacy 'stuff' (plus uBlock Origin and uMatrix), and the block lists in my firewall, the funny thing is that I leak the most PII data watching OTA TV via the HDHomeRun app on my phone (I prefer their app to VLC on my phone). MPA needs to take a time-out, maybe catch up with technology.
mdaniel
For those who are similarly curious, https://github.com/linuxmint/hypnotix#tv-channels-and-media-... says
> By default, Hypnotix is configured with one IPTV provider called Free-TV: https://github.com/Free-TV/IPTV
ElfinTrousers
> MPA needs to take a time-out, maybe catch up with technology.
Look it takes a lot of time and effort to make 12,000 completely indistinguishable superhero movies a year. They can't stay up on every little thing like "advances in technology", "changes in social attitudes", and "what legally constitutes piracy".
PentelicoMarble
Looks like someone saved a copy - https://pastebin.com/DXGstrXV
Double_a_92
Those are the channels from Brazil though. PlutoTV is available in many countries, and each has their own streaming links.
miyuru
This is not the real deal.
I found a another source by searching github(hint: search for the domain name) and it has many US live streams in HD and it's not even geo blocked.
Thanks to whoever decided to streisand this, would not found this awesome service without you.
Cthulhu_
I mean it's been on the internet for more than a minute, there's bound to be copies and backups. Whether they're easy to find is another matter though, since the search engines won't index them anymore. Although there's bound to be various github content copies out there that are resistant to takedowns.
LoganDark
Yep, someone certainly did :3c
Double_a_92
The thing with the ads doesn't happen for me though. Between the episodes on PlutoTV the browser / app would serve individual ads. But the video stream itself only has some synthwave style PlutoTV logo playing during that time.
mikeryan
This is the complaint from Plutos perspective. They are likely using client side ad insertion to serve targeted ads. There’s a separate VAST ad manifest which likely goes with the m3u8 url that has all the ad load and beacon data.
This doesn’t happen in an alternative client.
Note they could also be doing server side ads which replaces the individual video segments but there’s limitations there. Most streamers are still focused on client side ad insertion
pizzaknife
im sure the takedown ended up adding to a charted metric, buried in a division quarterly ppt. Piracy is a stretch, at best its perhaps digital trespass(insofar as if youre not using the pluto site they are losing that delicious user data) and thus in breach of some EULA that absolutely no one but paramount is aware of
detrites
Plus, it's likely the Streisand Effect is in now full force and they actually have increased this kind of activity not just for themselves, but for anyone else with a similar, oddly inviting setup.
kgwxd
Piracy is a stretch unless it refers to violence on the ocean.
viciousvoxel
FWIW privateering was violent, on the ocean, and legal
jordemort
It's not too difficult to figure out how to get Pluto's API to cough up the stream URLs, if you're the kind of person that knows how to use the developer tools in your browser. You can do similar things with Stirr and Tubi. Roku and Samsung also don't bother to encrypt their streams, but I don't think they have websites where you can watch them, so you'd have to tear apart one of their apps or get their list of channels from someone else.
pallas_athena
https://i.mjh.nz/PlutoTV/all.m3u8
or, divided by region: https://i.mjh.nz/PlutoTV/
jameshart
By analogy, lists of over-the-air TV and radio station frequencies, or unencrypted satellite channels would also be subject to takedown.
Kim_Bruning
My first instinct would indeed be that attaching to a stream would be analogous to tuning your TV to a particular channel, and this m3u is a channel list.
Of course, lawyers always make it complicated.
Get the top HN stories in your inbox every day.
From TFA:
> First and most importantly, ads were still being served via the stream; it was just happening via whatever third-party client the user was using. The main difference here is the app being used, and honestly, is that really such a bad thing?
From their perspective, they likely thought so. The amount of user tracking and spying data they can hoover up via an app., which is not available to them from someone using VLC (or another player) is huge, and it is very likely that a huge part of their monetization of Pluto TV streams comes from the tracking data they can hoover up via their app.
No app., no tracking data, no tracking data means lost profits from selling the same. So of course they try to abuse the DMCA as best they can to claw back those lost profits.