Popcorn Time is ostensibly built to access and watch copyrighted material without permission from the copyright holder. No-one is pretending they’re using it only to watch Big Buck Bunny. It isn’t like a general-purpose BitTorrent client either because those generally don’t market themselves as tools for copyright infringement and torrents are widely used legitimately for free-software distribution. You’d have a point if it was uncalled “Popcorn-and-Slackware Time” - but it isn’t.
Disregarding the inevitable 2A analogy (“knife” -> “gun”), the concept of dual-use is recognised by legal precedent: the maker of a knife intends for it to be used in culinary or outdoors survival scenarios. If I sold my own line of knives with a TV and billboard campaign emphasising about how my knives are specifically designed to shank people with - and someone inevitably does get shanked by one of my knives I fully expect to be at the receiving-end of at least a civil liability suit - but most likely some criminal charges for recklessness.
I recognise that Popcorn Time itself isn’t violating copyright and so cannot be the subject of a DMCA takedown notice, Popcorn Time might be viewed as falling under the DMCA’s Anti-circumvention clauses or something similar. And if the courts somehow find it to be completely in the clear, I guarantee that within a few years the MPAA will get a new copyright law on the books that specifically considers the intent of the creator or distributor of a tool involved in copyright infringement.
The language regarding takedown notices in the safe harbor provision is worded toward copyrighted material and not piracy tools, but GitHub really can't play dumb after this notice. They have been notified that they are hosting an illegal tool, and if they want to continue being considered an immune service provider under the safe harbor provision they will have to keep the repository disabled. If GitHub willingly reinstates a repository that they know is illegal they could lose their status as a protected service provider and then the MPA can sue them.
It's not abuse of a DMCA takedown notice to use it against tools that are intended to infringe on copyrights (specific copyrighted works are presumably detailed in Exhibit A of their notice that I couldn't find). The MPA isn't being dishonest and claiming that they own the code, they are claiming that the code is predominately intended for illegal purposes under the DMCA. It's creative, but not dishonest. This isn't someone spamming DMCA notices at some innocent coder, this is pretty much the system working as intended.
Read the actual laws here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17 And some decent summaries here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A... and here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
The text of the law that you encourage us to read says:
> No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.
... followed by many exceptions. But that's section 1201, which is not referenced by section 512 that defines the takedown procedure.
> but GitHub really can't play dumb after this notice. They have been notified that they are hosting an illegal tool, and if they want to continue being considered an immune service provider under the safe harbor provision they will have to keep the repository disabled. If GitHub willingly reinstates a repository that they know is illegal they could lose their status as a protected service provider and then the MPA can sue them.
There's actually a provision in section 512 that protects GitHub should they choose to ignore what turns out to be an invalid takedown notice—they are legally considered to not be aware of infringement or infringing activity.
> It's not abuse of a DMCA takedown notice to use it against tools that are intended to infringe on copyrights
The takedown notice procedure is only specified for works that are an actual infringement. A tool for infringement is not the same as the product of an infringing action. There's no room for "creativity" here. The MPA does not own any exclusive rights regarding copying, distributing, modifying, etc. the pieces of software they object to, because that software is not a copy or derivative work of any of the movies they own copyright to.
DMCA claims aren't even related to morality and the issues are always black and white. Either the plaintiff has copyright over the items they claim or they don't and it belongs to someone else or no one. In this case they cannot in any way claim that they have ownership of the code or product unless the popcorntime project has a signed dislaimer all devs agree to handing over the rights to the code to someone else (not likely).
So, simply DMCA abuse.