Talk:Popcorn Time/Archive 1

Archive 1

It's back?

Don't have time now, but it appears as linked from Time, that github has the files, and that links to here which links to this site which calls it "Popcorn Time." Lots of open source projects change hands. B^e——C_ritical 06:27, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Protected?

When I try to edit the article I get the following message: "You do not have permission to edit this page, for the following reason: " There is NO REASON stated and who is responsible for the protection is also missing, etc. ??? 78.35.229.32 (talk) 06:35, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes it's protected for IPs and maybe new users... look up "semi protection." Because IPs kept adding links that shouldn't have been there[1]. Sorry... try getting a username (then you'll eventually be "autoconfirmed). I'm going to bed right now but I'd be happy to make any appropriate changes to the article for you if you post them here. Not saying I'll make them though, WP has lots of rules. B^e——C_ritical 06:38, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Pochoclin

is it really a contributor name, or pseudo? My understanding was that it's the name of the project mascot. --disdero (talk) 06:09, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It was the signature on the farewell message. I took it to be the pseudonym of the original group of developers. F (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Confirmation as mascot here on cached version in GitHub http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ohdqI8f6uJQJ:https://github.com/popcorn-time/popcorn-app/issues/60+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=fr --disdero (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

... and pochoclo is <what else ? ;-) > popcorn in Spanish, cf https://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pochoclo&redirect=no --disdero (talk) 16:14, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 March 2014

There is other and better distribution then the one in the "extenrnal links" like: time4popcorn.eu

please add them to the external links section

thanks William James82 (talk) 22:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The current lined version is to the Popcorn Time Team version. It is covered in reputable media. It has source code. The Time 4 Popcorn version has neither. If you can tell me how this version is better, then we will consider posting it. F (talk) 23:18, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

According to many sources it seems that indeed time4popcorn is the group that develops the program. Here are some press releases and video articles talking about them and linking to their website. YouTube video 1 YouTube video 2 Kim Komando article clarin.com article cuatro.com article

Hope it helps MartinJones1965 (talk) 06:27, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 22:05, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello, Here is an article published by Forbes magazine Forbes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.116.181.234 (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2014 (UTC)

Not done: According to the page's protection level and your user rights, you should currently be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. (t) Josve05a (c) 00:19, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Time 4 Popcorn

Is worth mention the Time4popcorn.eu as another distribution source. Also you can watch TV shows on that version — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.142.153.146 (talk) 18:57, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Someone please update the Article: https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-rivals-prep-tv-android-and-chromecast-support-140406/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.103.249 (talk) 21:44, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

There is not such thing official version! PLEASE KEEP TIME4POPCORN, is a legit distribution of the software — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.103.248 (talk) 18:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

If someone wants a page for time4popcorn create a new page, is not popcorn time that program. Why someone put a rebranded app into another wiki? The only official group of the official app is popcorn-org, open source, same name, same license.Sharkiller (talk) 20:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Sharkiller, as you can see, the "groups" are coming and going, the original developer abandon the project. there is no official group, AND THIS IS AN OPEN SOURCE PROJECT - like Linux. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.78.103.229 (talk) 08:19, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

This page is about Popcorn Time. If you want to write about another port, you are free to start another page, assuming it meets the relevant policies. F (talk) 12:25, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I am removing the link for Time 4 Popcorn because it does not have its sourcecode posted and therefore it is a copyright violation of Popcorn Time. See WP:LINKVIO. (Yes I am aware of the irony.) F (talk) 06:58, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Some irony, indeed ! ;-) --disdero (talk) 08:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

And is anyway suspect for not posting source code. B^e——C_ritical 01:07, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Irrelevant github repos

What is the point of linking github repos where no development is actually being done like time4popcorn and unicorn? The unicorn repo is just a fork of the old popcorn-time one. The tipe4popcorn repo seems to be just a snapshot of the popcorn-official one, even their README.md has links to popcorn-official for the development page and contributing guidelines. It looks like they created that repo just not to be blamed for violating the GPL (but they have already shown how much they care). --Goyo 46.25.194.164 (talk) 16:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request 13 April 2014

As Popcorn Time is an open source project, and does not come under any license (not even creative commons), links to forks such as http://itspopcornti.me should be kept in. Why should get-popcorn.com be kept as the "official" page, when there is no official organisation that heads up popcorn time? Flippinpancakes (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: Firstly, Popcorn Time is GPL. If there's no complete source code then it's a copyright violation and we can't link it here for WP:LINKVIO. Secondly, subjects must be notable and have significant coverage by reliable sources before we write about them. That repo was just forked an hour ago. F (talk) 12:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 April 2014

The link to the official git repo is crap. It should point to: https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app 201.255.253.242 (talk) 06:09, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

I think we can remove the Github link per WP:ELMINOFFICIAL, because the Github is linked prominently on their homepage anyway. F (talk) 12:14, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

• Having links to the source doesn't WP:ELMINOFFICIAL is about websites, and a link to the source code isn't a website. Having said that... What appears to have happened here is the original app was abandoned (https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app) and someone created a fork to take over the development and improvement (https://github.com/unicorn-time/popcorn-app). What I've just done is add a couple new parameters to the infobox template, so please add the following highlighted lines:

| latest release version = 
| latest release date    = <!-- {{Start date and age|YYYY|MM|DD|df=yes/no}} -->
| release version = {{URL|https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app}}
| latest preview version = Beta 0.2.8.1
| latest preview date    = {{Start date and age|2014|03|27}}
| preview version = {{URL|https://github.com/unicorn-time/popcorn-app}}

Also, once that is done, it should be safe to remove the link from the external links section since it will be in the infobox. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(t • e • c)} 14:33, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Lol are you serious? https://github.com/popcorn-official/ abandoned? you can see is pretty active. the official page is updated: http://get-popcorn.com/ new versions are out, the localization is very active http://www.getlocalization.com/PopcornTime/ what are you trying to do is a nonsense. Sharkiller (talk) 05:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done for now: There doesn't yet seem to be a consensus for what to do yet, and admins aren't authorised to edit protected pages without consensus. When you come to a consensus as to what edit should be made, please reactivate the edit request, and then someone will come and update the article for you. Best — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 06:47, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Last Paragraph

Paragraph has been rewritten; the rest is WP:FORUM violations.

The last paragraph currently reads: On March 16, Popcorn Time was released again, now by another group of developers, a team from Github. While the Time4Popcorn project continues to stay online the other project was taken down on April 2. Now the co-founder of Popcorn-Team, "isra17", states that he doesn't know why it was taken down and that he's waiting a reply from co-founder "jduncanator" who hasn't been heard from since. Isra17 has made another repository where he and other contributors will continue development. Also a new website has been launched to support the new repository. On April 11 the second project changed its website and GitHub page. I have some questions that I can't seem to answer from this paragraph that I think someone with more knowledge of the subject would be able to re-word to make clearer. March 16 of what year? What other project, can this distinction be clarified. Which project is the "popcorn-team" involved in? the term isn't used earlier in the article jduncanator hasn't been heard from since the site went down or since isral17 tried to contact him? SPACKlick (talk) 08:58, 14 May 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: 16 March 2014 After the original developers abandoned the project, a YIFY Torrents developer whose name was jduncanator joined another developer named isra17 and they both continued the popcorn time project. But, jduncanator left the project after a while (without stating anything) and took down the github repo and the website popcorn-time.tv with him. isra17 started another github repo and another website was made but again isra17 left the project too without saying a thing and took down both the repo and the website!. Frustrated contributers continued the project again and the leadership was given to (I don't know). A currently active github repo is available and also a website under the name: get-popcorn.com popcorn-team was the team consisted of jduncanator, isra17 and other contributers. See answer #2 P.S: I didn't include or talk about time4popcorn.eu because I've been watching the whole thing since the original developers started Popcorn Time and to be honest, these guys aren't the good guys. They may have "now" some resources and support but I've seen them since the beginning and I know how creepy they are!. Zombiezoom (talk) 18:33, 15 May 2014 (UTC) @Zombiezoom: What is so "creepy" in Time4Popcorn?! Can you elaborate? I'm sure I can address any concern you may have. Time4Popcorn are the good guys. the other team is spreading lies, blanking content, removing comments from the talk page. it is clear that the bad guys here are get-popcorn. they are the worst of the open source community Time4Popcorn are the good guys Editr331 (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2014 (UTC) @Editr331: Well, they were closed-source at first and when they went open-source, all they did was "copy" the whole popcorn-team github repo including of course the readme which included the plans popcorn-team made for development. No credit was given back to popcorn-team and no update was made over what they sto.. ehm, copied. After they realized the mistake they've done, they published "their" source code and it wasn't a surprise. Time4Popcorn uses a centralized server system which can make it vulnerable to takedowns,backdoors and other malicious code. At this point in time however there has not been found any harmful code in Time4Popcorn. So although this could become a problem, it isn't now.(also note that it's a bit dubious that a P2P app uses a centralized server as infrastructure. Since P2P is mostly Decentralized, this is kind of defeating the purpose of watching with P2P.) At the beginning of the Time4Popcorn project there was also another fork around, called Popcorn-Team on Github. Managed and by Jduncanator and later merged by Isra_17. Time4Popcorn stole the entire source code we used, however they did not technically steal anything since only one part of the code was protected. This means that they could just take it since it was Open Source, our Popcorn Time Community however still wants to see credits for the rip-off, since they did use the code. Pretty straight forward Man in the Middle attack vector right here on line 290 of 'app.js': div.innerHTML='<iframe name="igui" src="http://app.time4popcorn.eu/?uid=' ... You are loading html into node-webkit over non-secure http. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the html loaded into this iframe is not sandboxed. So anyone could hijack the page with DNS or ARP poisoning, and then send malicious code straight into the app. At the time whey they first published their source code, it had been a exact clone of Popcorn Time's source code, including all comments and contributions. Which is a bit shady because they told us that they wanted to release the source code, why than choose a source code of another project? It's not clear what that action was, but at the moment they have put out their source code so that has been "kind of" resolved. Time4Popcorn has recently released their own Android version, which uses the same "cloud" that the windows version used aswell. This might be dangerous regarding Android malware but then again, at this point No dangerous code was found in their app. As far as name goes, they named it Popcorn Time, which is not a nice thing to do. This could be to steal traffic from the official Popcorn time but it could also just be because they want a name change. So once again, there are some things who could be called shady, but there not dangerous as far we know. The reviews of the android version are that a lot of movies and tv shows do not work on this particular time, so thats an issue that might be resolved soon.Zombiezoom (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) Ok, thanks for that @Zombiezoom: it was most helpful although the reformatted page has dealt with my issue thoroughly.SPACKlick (talk) 08:14, 16 May 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: You're welcome. Zombiezoom (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2014 (UTC) @SPACKlick: It is very easy to state some frivolous claims and try to distort reality. but the truth is that Time4Popcorn didn't start as open source because they didn't know what caused the original project to close and they did very caution steps in order to assure that Popcorn Time will be stay online forever. And for your claims: First of all, the other team has an update feature as well, that uses a centralized server as well, so to use this claim is absurd. You can find other apps that uses cloud as their interface like, Adobe Air for an instance. Time4Popcorn took "the other team's code" to github on the day that popcorn-time.tv was took down with no reason, and 99% of the code was actually the code of the ORIGINAL PROJECT - at the hour that Time4Popcorn uploaded the code to Github it was THE ONLY COPY OF THE CODE ONLINE - Time4Popcorn only wanted to ensure that the code will not be lost from the Internet while fulfilling their vision to ensure that Popcorn time will be available online forever. Morever, Time4Popcorn never used 1 line of code that was wrote by the other team - the online version on their website was 100% their own creation. so there is no need for them to give credits to anyone, beside the ORIGINAL PROJECT. same claim as 2 - read 2 again. same claim as 1 - read 1 again. don't get your point - Time4Popcorn was the first available source online for Popcorn Time after the original project was taken down, so maybe the other team should consider a name change. Popcorn time 0.1.0 also had bugs when it first came out. Thank you for stating out that you're a part of the other team, btw. Editr331 (talk) 18:31, 16 May 2014 (UTC) @Editr331: I am not part of Get-Popcorn.com, I am a just user who likes Popcorn Time and has been there since the beginning. I am not the one to reply to these claims of yours, specially the technical ones. So anyway I won't waste my time as I've already said what I witnessed. Zombiezoom (talk) 13:01, 17 May 2014 (UTC) @Editr331: Sadly to disagree. When they put their code in their github we haven't been shutdown, was not even close to last shutdown. So you should check your facts until lie. Im an active contributor of Popcorn Time so I know everything. We are open source and we push like 40~50 commits per day or more. When they see we work on something they release non working feature to look at "first" when they never worked. They claimed they going to release their source a lot of times like "next week" "next week" and what was the code after that? a completely copy of our repo until last commit. They dont even FORK our repo. They downloaded the zip and uploaded with time4popcorn name. Even my nick was all over the readme text. Time4popcorn was not the first with available code. They never released any code until a few weeks ago and is that. Sleeping in their github without any commits. They used a few times our repo and deleted everything all the times. They even used ours build in their site for a long time for theirs linux build. Looks like they couldnt do "their" linux builds. So before lie to use that line to all the question is better to be quiet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.158.246.144 (talk) 12:46, 18 May 2014‎ (UTC)

We should add time4popcorn.eu

Time4popcorn.eu have released their code on Github (for all platforms) and appear to be the most active and most widely-known of the current development efforts (for example, they're highest ranking in Google when searching for "Popcorn time").

Therefore I suggest links to the time4popcorn website and github repositories are added. Dan100 (Talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

They should NOT be added until they make it CLEAR to users that they are a FORK of the original popcorn time, instead of using the name to try and fool users into thinking they are the official version. They've named themselves time4popcorn, so therefore they should ditch the popcorn time name altogether. 180.150.157.33 (talk) 14:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

PLEASE COMPARE THE 2 REPO https://github.com/time4popcorn/popcorntime-desktop AND https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app and told me which one is the most active

HAHAHA You guys make me laungh

Protected edit request on 17 April 2014

Time4popcorn.eu have released their code on Github (for all platforms) and appear to be the most active and most widely-known of the current development efforts (for example, they're highest ranking in Google when searching for "Popcorn time"). Therefore I suggest links to the time4popcorn website and github repositories are added. Dan100 (Talk) 07:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC) https://github.com/time4popcorn/popcorntime-desktop http://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-rivals-prep-tv-android-and-chromecast-support-140406/

time4popcorn was around from the first day after the original project was taken down. time4popcorn.eu was the first website to publish online the popcorn time files after the project closed

thanks. Andy665221 (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Sorry Time4Popcorn is a bad clone, they use the official github to stole progress. They are not active neither the "widely-known" of the current development. As you can see here https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app/issues?state=open we have a lot of issues reported, here the actively repo https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app/commits/dev-0.3 that is taken by time4popcorn. Their repo is a clone of ours with no issues, no commits, same UI we were working for the past weeks.

You can see people here talking about the garbage of this clone and not recommending to install (official stickied post on reddit) http://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/comments/232xmf/a_list_of_popcorn_time_clones_and_android/ time4popcorn is neither the first and neither the one that publish buils. As you can see their mac build is the same as our official from http://get-popcorn.com and github. Sharkiller (talk) 10:08, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level and/or your user rights have changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

Revert

@Phnz:, why are you incessantly blanking content? Let's discuss it here. Maybe you can convince me that the blanking is legitimate. Tutelary (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Phnz - STOP REMOVE TIME4POPCORN LINKS!!! STOP SPREAD LIES ABOUT TIME4POPCORN !!! GET-POPCORN - IS THE UGLIEST COMMUNITY IN THE ENTIRE INTERNT

http://time4popcorn.eu/?popcorntimewar http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/popcorn-time-is-coming-to-android-as-soon-as-tomorrow/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtcTz-CPesQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy665221 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Someone can please banned this -Phnz- from edit this article? http://time4popcorn.eu/?popcorntimewar - http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/popcorn-time-is-coming-to-android-as-soon-as-tomorrow/ - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AtcTz-CPesQ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy665221 (talk • contribs) 14:20, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit Warring

@Phnz:, @Andy665221:, you both will be blocked for breaking the three revert rule if you guys don't stop editing the page, and discuss the changes on the talk using civil language and no personal attacks. Please, heed this warning. Tutelary (talk) 15:02, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

@Tutelary - there is no one to talk to, he just spread lies and jeopardize all of time4popcorn hard work - what can I do? i just want Wikipedia to feet the reality and not to the interest of get-popcorn group. can you help? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy665221 (talk • contribs) 15:07, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 May 2014

Extended content

@VQuakr: - Is constantly removing my comments from the Talk page - @VQuakr: There is absolutely no reason for your to delete my comments from the Talk! This is unacceptable! Wikipedia should block you. And for the protected request: Let us start by first giving a few point to think about from the Wikipedia list of principals: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia: It combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. Wikipedia is not a soapbox, an advertising platform, a vanity press, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, an indiscriminate collection of information, or a web directory. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view: We strive for articles that document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone And please if we may further elaborate on the term in the first clause: Soapbox. Wiki definition: Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. The Get-popcorn team has done exactly the opposite from Wikipedia's code of conduct. They've turned Popcorn Time into a battleground, a vehicle for their propoganda, advertising and showcasing their product. And they've done this not only on Wikipedia, but in every other place on the web where the name time4popcorn was mentioned in the past 2 months. So since Wikipedia now forced to get into this battle, let's at least state the facts: time4popcorn was the first Popcorn Time project that went live after the original project was terminated. time4popcorn was the first to offer TV series on the Popcorn Time platform time4popcorn was the only Popcorn Time that was never taken down and constantly kept on growing and improving and giving more to their users. time4popcorn IS FULLY OPEN SOURCED - They didn't start as an open source project for security reasons (their choice to stay anonymous made them start it away from the public's eye so they can stabilize this project first and then exposed everything.) But everything now is open source and exposed to public's eye. And now here's their personal say about to the Get-Popcorn team about this childish behaviour in the past couple of months: Time4Popcorn not going to steep to your level guys. Time4Popcorn don't do this "teenage" wars- it's just not what they here for. they are older, wiser, and they are here to work. To produce. To make Popcorn Time the most amazing app ever created. So please, for your own sake, stop focusing on Time4Popcorn and start focusing on what you claim to be doing: Popcorn Time. Because you're lagging behind. While Time4Popcorn constantly improving the app, working days and nights to develop an Android app (get it on www.time4popcorn.eu), creating a version for Windows XP, Chromecast support, Smart TV version, iOS and more. you're "investing" your energy in trashing their name, spreading evil lies, and trying to ruin everything they do on every possible platform out there. Wikipedia being one of them. Time4Popcorn are going to swear to this once more, as they do every time someone them: Everything Get-Popcorn team is saying about Time4Popcorn is an absolute lie. Time4Popcorn took up this project once the original was taken down just as they did, only Time4Popcorn did it before them, better than them and they never took it down. Nor will we ever. Time4Popcorn believe that there's room for both of these projects out there and they are happy with competition- the users will only gain from this competition, and Time4Popcorn here for the users. So good luck to both teams- and really Get-Popcorn team, lay off our backs. It just a waste of your time. And for the consensus of time4popcorn: (this is just an handful of articles posted about Time4popcorn just from the recent weeks on the leading tech news websites in the worlds: Time4popcorn is the number 1 result on every search engine for the keyword "popcorn time" https://torrentfreak.com/popcorn-time-rivals-prep-tv-android-and-chromecast-support-140406/ http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/13/popcorn-time-is-now-on-android/ http://www.complex.com/tech/2014/05/popcorn-time-android http://www.ubergizmo.com/2014/05/popcorn-time-for-android-released/ http://www.tweaktown.com/news/37690/popcorn-time-has-arrived-in-its-full-form-on-android/index.html http://www.numerama.com/magazine/29318-popcorn-time-le-pire-cauchemar-d-hollywood-arrive-sur-android.html http://news.en.softonic.com/popcorn-time-google-play-removal http://www.latinpost.com/articles/12238/20140510/popcorn-time-joins-mobile-app-marketplace-movie-torrent-streaming-software-now-functions-on-android-windows-xp.htm http://gizmodo.com/popcorn-time-for-android-lets-you-stream-torrented-movi-1570466441 http://techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/popcorn-time-is-coming-to-android-as-soon-as-tomorrow/ http://www.digitaltrends.com/mobile/popcorn-time-release-android-app-piracy-needs/#!NbL2x http://branchez-vous.com/2014/05/13/popcorn-time-debarque-sur-android/ http://www.bldana.net/2014/science-and-techno/11372.html http://www.europapress.es/portaltic/software/noticia-aplicacion-popcorn-time-permite-ver-peliculas-streaming-llega-android-20140509101401.html http://www.nutech.nl/apps/3770991/popcorn-time-android-verwijderd-google.html http://www.lanacion.com.py/articulo/164389--aplicacion-de-peliculas-gratis-popcorn-time-llega-a-android.html http://www.adslzone.net/2014/05/11/conoce-mas-acerca-de-popcorn-time-la-aplicacion-para-ver-peliculas-en-streaming/ http://www.telam.com.ar/notas/201405/62420-popcorn-time-llego-a-android.html http://aitnews.com/2014/05/13/%D8%AE%D8%AF%D9%85%D8%A9-popcorn-time-%D9%84%D8%A8%D8%AB-%D8%A7%D9%84%D8%A3%D9%81%D9%84%D8%A7%D9%85-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%85%D9%82%D8%B1%D8%B5%D9%86%D8%A9-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D9%84%D9%82-%D8%AA%D8%B7%D8%A8%D9%8A/ http://www.nu.nl/tech/3774680/popcorn-time-opnieuw-beschikbaar-android.html http://www.pcguia.pt/2014/05/popcorn-time-chegou-ao-android/ http://mobiel.nu.nl/tech/3774680/popcorn-time-opnieuw-beschikbaar-android.html @Phnz: - stop using words like "real" or "official" it doesn't impress anyone here. Andy665221 (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2014 (UTC) @VQuakr: - Please don't remove Time4Popcorn's comments from the talk!! it's not ethical. get-popcorn cannot silent other people opnions. Editr331 (talk) 06:53, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Not done: To give you a meaningful response, you need to specify an edit that you would like to be made to the article. I see a lot of words here, but no specific proposals for an edit that you would like to be made. However, per the section above, the article has changed a little bit since you made this request. Hopefully this should be a little more neutral. However, please feel free to make more protected edit requests if there are still things that you would like to be changed. (Please read WP:Edit requests first, though, if you want to make your requests as effective as possible.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:13, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Live versions of this site should not be linked

Per WP:ELNEVER, links to live knockoffs of Popcorn Time should never be linked. Links to copyright violations are excluded from WP:ELOFFICIAL. This version contains fewer instances, though it still needs to have additional links removed to be compliant with this guideline. VQuakr (talk) 04:03, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you clarify the concern for removing the questioned material? I'm not familiar with the software; but the article seems to indicate that it's free and open source - so copyright would only be an issue if the secondary website has somehow violated the terms under whichever open source license was used for the original software. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:11, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Barek: the software is a platform for distribution of pirated content. The subject's website shows only a goodbye message, so there are not guideline issues with linking to that. But as noted at the linked guideline, If there is reason to believe that a website has a copy of a work in violation of its copyright, do not link to it. Linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work casts a bad light on Wikipedia and its editors. F (talk · contribs) mentioned above that one of the knockoffs also is not open source and that that violates the GPL terms of the software, which I guess would be a separate but similar issue. VQuakr (talk) 04:34, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see this section before I removed some of the external links from the article. That was just because we don't include external links in the article body; I wasn't aware of the copyright issues. I have to go for now, but I will look into this again later. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 07:06, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Done I've removed the links to the websites, and in the process I've had to rewrite the last paragraph of the article with a skeleton sentence. Hopefully this sentence should be neutral with respect to the two groups involved here, but if anyone has any complaints with how I've worded things, please let me know. (When you mention me on this page please use the {{ping}} template, as I am not regularly watching the page.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 13:09, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: It's Get-Popcorn.com not Popcorn-Time.tv, as the latter is already dead and the community changed leadership and continued development at this site: http://get-popcorn.com Zombiezoom (talk) 18:11, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

@Zombiezoom: Has that been reported in any reliable sources yet? Technically we can't report it if it hasn't been reported first in a reliable source, although there may be ways to work round that. (See Wikipedia:Verifiability for the policy.) — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 23:24, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

I found a source in French that mentioned Get-Popcorn.com, so I've added it to the article. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 09:45, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Thank you for your quick response and you could also add these sources:

1. http://www.geektime.com/2014/04/16/not-only-free-movies-popcorn-time-adds-tv-series/
2. http://www.webupd8.org/2014/05/popcorn-time-03-released-with-tv-series.html Zombiezoom (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@ZombieZoom: The proper process to do this is for you to propose the exact text that you would like added to the article - including references, etc. - here on the talk page. Then, you wait for input from other editors, and if there is no input after a while, or if there is a discussion that leads to a consensus, then you can use the {{edit protected}} template to flag down an admin to make the edit for you. So, feel free to propose your preferred text here (preferably in a new section below, to keep the discussion well-organised). See Wikipedia:Edit requests for more details on making edit requests. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 15:16, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

@Mr. Stradivarius: Guys, please consider which project is active and in development. We talk about a open source project where the community contribute right ? Take a look at the repo https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-app -- More than 175 contributors, the latest release is dated of today and on the main website get-popcorn.com / popcorntime.io we can see the SAME version. Take a look on their repo now.. https://github.com/time4popcorn/popcorntime-desktop I don't understand why you guys keep giving them authority. This make no-sense to me and you guys will kill the project.

Neutral section discussing current developments

I think it would be prudent to add a new section that neutrally discusses the current developments happening with the forks of the original popcorn time. This would help to stop the edit warring that is causing this page to be continuously locked and also provide an unbiased outlook on the different forks. For instance users of the forks "get-popcorn" and "time4popcorn" appear to be be attacking each others posts in order to promote their respective fork. I think it would be wise to include only well cited and unbiased information. That means instead of saying (I quote from the talk page) "STOP REMOVE TIME4POPCORN LINKS!!! STOP SPREAD LIES ABOUT TIME4POPCORN !!! GET-POPCORN - IS THE UGLIEST COMMUNITY IN THE ENTIRE INTERNT" or "there is no one to talk to, he just spread lies and jeopardize all of time4popcorn hard work - what can I do? i just want Wikipedia to feet the reality and not to the interest of get-popcorn group. can you help" (which are both completely biased statements trying to get a third party to support their respective fork over another); they should say something such as (assuming they actually want their information to appear on the page) "Time4popcorn is a popular fork of the Popcorn Time project, which is greatly improved over the original, in many ways including..." followed by objectively listing changes made to said fork that support whatever claims they make. They also need to make sure they cite proof for all statements and avoid biased statements at all costs. Then the other side can objectively add their respective information to the section whilst making sure to cite proof as much as possible. They should probably stick to statements such as "A controversy involving the time4popcorn fork is that the developers have failed to provide proper source code for their project and subsequently violate the original licence. The program has also been noted as possibly risky by many affluent Reddit community members." They will of course need to provide sources for all of their information.

Hopefully I am not too optimistic about this and they will find some way to objectively complete this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silentknight31 (talk • contribs) 02:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

"Forking" of the Wikipedia Page

I will repost my concerns about the inclusion of the Time4Popcorn page under the same title as Popcorn Time. I am a developer of Popcorn Time.

Time4Popcorn is NOT Popcorn Time and never has been. Its not even called Popcorn Time. Why should they be putting information related to their project under a wikipedia page with the name of ours? Thats like me going to Firefox's Wikipedia page and posting information about Google Chrome. Sure, both are web browsers, but neither have anything to do with each other.

All the changes made to the page were purely factual and I made sure to include accurate references to everything. The majority of the changes were historical updates related to neither "forks". If Time4Popcorn wish to have a wikipedia page for their project, they should create one under the name of Time4Popcorn and stop "feeding" off our brand awareness. The line between Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn is so thin that we are constantly forced to explain via Email, Twitter, Facebook etc. that we are NOT Time4Popcorn and cannot support them in any way. By encompassing Time4Popcorn under the "Popcorn Time" name you are simply causing more work for us to constantly redirect them off to Time4Popcorn's project and helping blur that line even further. I find it unfair that the responsibility has to fall completely on us to direct users of their project in the correct direction. If it was the other way around, I'm sure T4P would feel equally about the issue.

I put references to a yet to be created Time4Popcorn page throughout my edit that anyone affiliated with their project can use to update their OWN wiki page about their OWN project. It seems unfair we have to accommodate both projects under our own Wikipedia page.

I understand that we don't "own" the wikipedia page but I would at least like to see the separation between two unrelated projects.

The project isn't a fork. Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn are two completely different projects. There is no relationship between them. Time4Popcorn have simply taken the idea and developed an application based off of that idea. By the same logic, I could start posting stuff about Popcorn Time on Netflixes page because both offer streaming of TV and Movie shows. Just because Time4Popcorn has the word "Popcorn" in it DOES NOT mean it is related. XeonCore (talk) 08:25, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Continuing the disscussion from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:VQuakr#Revisions_reverted_on_the_Popcorn_Time_Wikipage; I would tend to disagree with your position on the matter VQuakr, for i am one of the 'orginals' call it what you will of the popcorn time Offical Project (where this forking event/issue began -- this you can find out by simply going threw the repos commit history.) Time 4 popcorn is and always will be a separate entity they may look like us and go by a similar name (its quite easy to steal a design these days) but the inner workings of the two apps are drastically different. Sammuel86 (talk) 08:33, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Before we get a rush of devs from either project over here "voting," please review WP:CANVASS. The commit rev history is not a WP:RS; if you want action on the article please cite sources unrelated to your project. VQuakr (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

We aren't trying to vote on content. We are simply trying to get the point across that Time4Popcorn is not, nor has nothing to do with Popcorn Time. Sure, both popped up around the same time with the same ideas, but just because Time4Popcorn was born out of Popcorn Time does not mean that it is at all relevant to Popcorn Time. Take Zona as an example. Zona popped up at the same time, based off the idea that Popcorn Time had and streams both Movies and TV Shows in a way very similar to Popcorn Time. Even though both were "related" in some way, Zona is not Popcorn Time and nor should it have a spot on the Popcorn Time wikipedia page (not that it does). Another example is TVShowTime which even borrows a similar name (much like Time4Popcorn). They offer streaming of TV Shows from torrents just like Popcorn Time does. They don't have anything to do with Popcorn Time, much like Time4Popcorn. Providing information, biased or not, about Time4Popcorn on Popcorn Time's page is not only infactual and wrong, but also leads to confusion in readers as to what is going on and who is what. Time4Popcorn made the decision to use an alternate name (which we thank them for) when releasing their application. Why should they not have to use their own Wikipedia page too? XeonCore (talk) 08:46, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I get that that is your opinion. But we base article content on independent sources, not what the subject has to say about itself. So based on sources such as [2], [3], we describe these projects as related forks. Re "use their own Wikipedia page", please review WP:COI. VQuakr (talk) 08:52, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that because some news articles mixed up who was who, that they are somehow more factual and correct sources of information and that this wikipedia page must accept and follow what "large" media outlets "think" about topics? If you are trying to push this discussion in the correct direction, I wouldn't quote news articles like those as being unbiased. Rest assured there is no conflict of interest. We welcome the development of alternate software as we understand that not every piece of software is everyones cup of tea. We are simply expressing our opinion (unbiasedly) that the Time4Popcorn project is unrelated to the Popcorn Time project. Quoting something directly from the developers of the Time4Popcorn project, "In order to achieve all of this we had to develop the whole app over from scratch. The current Popcorn Time is built on technology called NodeWebkit which cannot support our vision, therefore we rebuilt everything from the ground up using Delphi, C++ and Javascript."[4] XeonCore (talk) 08:55, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I am not trying to push the discussion, I am explaining our content guidelines to you. A source need not be large to be reliable and independent - the New England Journal of Medicine is a better source for article on medical topics than CNN. Similarly, if you are aware of reliable specialist sources that are independent of your project and do a better job of describing the relationship between these projects than what is in the article now, by all means share them. VQuakr (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Popcorn Time development is suspended, development of forks is something else entirely

The website of the original Popcorn Time website ( http://getpopcornti.me/ ) is very clear that the original programmers are no longer working on the app. All currently available forks of the program are exactly that- forks, which are separate from the original program. All of the forks currently listed on the page do not have any affiliation with the original developers, so it would be factually incorrect to declare a fork as the "official successor", since an official successor doesn't exist. The original developers did not designate a "successor" fork.

This wikipedia article focuses on the original application, and not the features (and legal issues) of various forks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog that lists the app features and version of every fork. A typical user would be a student researching "legal issues facing piracy", and talking about how a fork has an Apple TV version is just wasting everyone's time. The wikipedia article for Popcorn Time is not the right place to talk about how "fork XYZ will be planning to release an iPhone app in August 2014" (As of right now, it is November 2014). I just removed that line, by the way, since the iOS app of that fork had been released several months ago, making that paragraph out of date.

Same thing for the website link. It should point to http://getpopcornti.me/, and any other website would be factually inaccurate.

Keep the stuff about forks in the subsection of the article named "Forks", people. Anywhere else in the article is inappropriate, just like how you shouldn't talk about the new features of the newest version of Ubuntu in an article about Debian. Teemome (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the update to the page is excellent, as it appears that the situation and history is portrayed accurately. Thank you for the great work on this Teemome (talk), as your discussion seems sound to me. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that User:Teemone's edit is a large improvement. User:Mndyspca should stop reverting and take the discussion here. --Lonaowna (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of how Pocorntime is related to Time4Popcorn

"http://popcorntime.io/ is arguably the most canonical offshoot of the original Popcorn Time, and actually consistently brands itself as Popcorn Time. A number of regular developers carried over to it, until (when Popcorn Time was reportedly affiliated with YIFY) the two major project leaders were presumably forced to suddenly disappear from development by clandestine legal threats. Popcorn Time (the currently mentioned one) maintained the open source and community development aspects of the original from its very beginning, aside from a brief pause when the Github for both Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn (mentioned in the article) were taken down under DMCA claims before establishing a Stash repository on popcorntime.io.

On the other hand, http://time4popcorn.eu/ caused a lot of suspicion by those familiar with the previously mentioned Popcorn Time, despite its greater popularity. In the months following the succession of the original Popcorn Time, Time4Popcorn did not publicly publish their source (and even their Github was more of a stagnant, unused snapshot) and were actually found out to having "borrowed" from the publicly-available Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io, then under another domain) to keep up with the UI/functionality updates made then when the names from several developers of the new Popcorn Time successor were found in its documentation in the exact form (to which a Time4Popcorn rep/dev questioned where it could be found so it could be properly removed).

Beyond potential plagiarism (which is more of a moral argument, considering this is open source), the greater suspicion was the lack of a Time4Popcorn public source. While this is not necessarily wrong, given the context of several potential malware versions of Popcorn Time upon its release into the wild, Time4Popcorn closely resembled the rest without any definitive proof from its source. Now, they continue to have an air of unprofessionalism that is surprisingly not more uneasy for its users: they persist with a similar UI that arose at the time they were indirectly accused of copying updates and little change since and use the same website design and logo as the original Popcorn Time despite its more fair recognition as "Time4Popcorn". They continue to perform private development, only providing a source under the GPLv3 license Popcorn Time kicked off with.

That being said, they seem to have found their own way now, with their pioneer releases into Android and iOS, though much to the annoyance of many with the continued branding as "Popcorn Time". I am not claiming there is any deserved inheritance to the use of the original name "Popcorn Time", but given the rocky legitimacy of Time4Popcorn against the (unavoidable, as developers and repositories dropped like flies) rocky progress of Popcorn Time, PopcornTime.io continues to be the most trustworthy through its transparent development, numerous developers and contributors, and deep roots. While Time4Popcorn.eu has apparently focused on rapidly expanding to other platforms, PopcornTime.io has always held that the desktop application is still not feature complete (hence beta, though there has been Android builds in test over the past months), which is clearer and clearer as PopcornTime.io makes greater headway into improving and adding design, features, and support (with in-progress or completed: external player support, an Anime category, various TV support, revamped UIs, extensive options, television next episode pre-loading, and so on)."

"Due to the community-centric nature of PopcornTime.io, it's incredibly accessible and receptive for anyone to post on their discussion board, report issues on the board or issue tracker (JIRA, found in their Stash repository now that their Github is no more), or even create pull requests on the repository if you make direct changes to the code or assets. As you noticed the bias in my post, this is inherently why it will be difficult to speak objectively between PopcornTime.io and Time4Popcorn.eu, which lacks the anywhere near the same capacity for community contribution.

In that sense alone, they're different beasts. Yet, they still strongly resemble one another given their youth and origins, so I want to take chances like these to spread awareness to PopcornTime.io (which seems to lose out on mere consumer awareness alone)."

This explanation is clearer than what is currently found in the Wikipedia article. Maybe the gist of this could be included. Quoted from comments found here: http://lifehacker.com/popcorn-time-the-movie-torrent-streaming-app-comes-to-1640786156 49.151.12.174 (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation. Further to this, I received this comment on my Talk page in the last 24 hours:

Popcorn Time's development has indeed split into two teams, the original Popcorn Time with loads of new dews and Time 4 Popcorn. These two pages have completely different social media accounts and web sites. (https://twitter.com/popcorntimetv and http://facebook.com/PopcornTimeTv versus https://twitter.com/Time4Popcorn and https://facebook.com/time4popcorn). The development crew is completely different as technology used, concept and strategy too. Also, Time 4 Popcorn is mostly closed source nowadays. Jessejarvi

I will look at the Lifehacker piece, as well as the social media links, to try and work out the best way to incorporate this knowledge into the article. Of course, other copyeditors are welcome to contribute. Regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed someone going back over revisions and trying to remove any mention of the Popcorntime.io project in favor of Time4Popcorn and its new domain. It seems like they're trying to rewrite that section more like an ad for their project, and ignoring the fact that the original form at Popcorntime.io even exists, even though Popcorntime.io is a fork of the original project, still available to download, and supported on a community subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/ I've reverted one of those edits so at least it's mentioned, but people watching this article may want to be aware of it - it looks like the developers behind the new Time4Popcorn are trying to blot out the others' existence and boost their own, but that's supposition. --2601:A:2300:C0B3:F840:B3CD:713D:C2C0 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Popcorn Time development is suspended, development of forks is something else entirely

The website of the original Popcorn Time website ( http://getpopcornti.me/ ) is very clear that the original programmers are no longer working on the app. All currently available forks of the program are exactly that- forks, which are separate from the original program. All of the forks currently listed on the page do not have any affiliation with the original developers, so it would be factually incorrect to declare a fork as the "official successor", since an official successor doesn't exist. The original developers did not designate a "successor" fork.

This wikipedia article focuses on the original application, and not the features (and legal issues) of various forks. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a blog that lists the app features and version of every fork. A typical user would be a student researching "legal issues facing piracy", and talking about how a fork has an Apple TV version is just wasting everyone's time. The wikipedia article for Popcorn Time is not the right place to talk about how "fork XYZ will be planning to release an iPhone app in August 2014" (As of right now, it is November 2014). I just removed that line, by the way, since the iOS app of that fork had been released several months ago, making that paragraph out of date.

Same thing for the website link. It should point to http://getpopcornti.me/, and any other website would be factually inaccurate.

Keep the stuff about forks in the subsection of the article named "Forks", people. Anywhere else in the article is inappropriate, just like how you shouldn't talk about the new features of the newest version of Ubuntu in an article about Debian. Teemome (talk) 13:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Wow, the update to the page is excellent, as it appears that the situation and history is portrayed accurately. Thank you for the great work on this Teemome (talk), as your discussion seems sound to me. Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 10:52, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I agree that User:Teemone's edit is a large improvement. User:Mndyspca should stop reverting and take the discussion here. --Lonaowna (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Summary of how Pocorntime is related to Time4Popcorn

"http://popcorntime.io/ is arguably the most canonical offshoot of the original Popcorn Time, and actually consistently brands itself as Popcorn Time. A number of regular developers carried over to it, until (when Popcorn Time was reportedly affiliated with YIFY) the two major project leaders were presumably forced to suddenly disappear from development by clandestine legal threats. Popcorn Time (the currently mentioned one) maintained the open source and community development aspects of the original from its very beginning, aside from a brief pause when the Github for both Popcorn Time and Time4Popcorn (mentioned in the article) were taken down under DMCA claims before establishing a Stash repository on popcorntime.io.

On the other hand, http://time4popcorn.eu/ caused a lot of suspicion by those familiar with the previously mentioned Popcorn Time, despite its greater popularity. In the months following the succession of the original Popcorn Time, Time4Popcorn did not publicly publish their source (and even their Github was more of a stagnant, unused snapshot) and were actually found out to having "borrowed" from the publicly-available Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io, then under another domain) to keep up with the UI/functionality updates made then when the names from several developers of the new Popcorn Time successor were found in its documentation in the exact form (to which a Time4Popcorn rep/dev questioned where it could be found so it could be properly removed).

Beyond potential plagiarism (which is more of a moral argument, considering this is open source), the greater suspicion was the lack of a Time4Popcorn public source. While this is not necessarily wrong, given the context of several potential malware versions of Popcorn Time upon its release into the wild, Time4Popcorn closely resembled the rest without any definitive proof from its source. Now, they continue to have an air of unprofessionalism that is surprisingly not more uneasy for its users: they persist with a similar UI that arose at the time they were indirectly accused of copying updates and little change since and use the same website design and logo as the original Popcorn Time despite its more fair recognition as "Time4Popcorn". They continue to perform private development, only providing a source under the GPLv3 license Popcorn Time kicked off with.

That being said, they seem to have found their own way now, with their pioneer releases into Android and iOS, though much to the annoyance of many with the continued branding as "Popcorn Time". I am not claiming there is any deserved inheritance to the use of the original name "Popcorn Time", but given the rocky legitimacy of Time4Popcorn against the (unavoidable, as developers and repositories dropped like flies) rocky progress of Popcorn Time, PopcornTime.io continues to be the most trustworthy through its transparent development, numerous developers and contributors, and deep roots. While Time4Popcorn.eu has apparently focused on rapidly expanding to other platforms, PopcornTime.io has always held that the desktop application is still not feature complete (hence beta, though there has been Android builds in test over the past months), which is clearer and clearer as PopcornTime.io makes greater headway into improving and adding design, features, and support (with in-progress or completed: external player support, an Anime category, various TV support, revamped UIs, extensive options, television next episode pre-loading, and so on)."

"Due to the community-centric nature of PopcornTime.io, it's incredibly accessible and receptive for anyone to post on their discussion board, report issues on the board or issue tracker (JIRA, found in their Stash repository now that their Github is no more), or even create pull requests on the repository if you make direct changes to the code or assets. As you noticed the bias in my post, this is inherently why it will be difficult to speak objectively between PopcornTime.io and Time4Popcorn.eu, which lacks the anywhere near the same capacity for community contribution.

In that sense alone, they're different beasts. Yet, they still strongly resemble one another given their youth and origins, so I want to take chances like these to spread awareness to PopcornTime.io (which seems to lose out on mere consumer awareness alone)."

This explanation is clearer than what is currently found in the Wikipedia article. Maybe the gist of this could be included. Quoted from comments found here: http://lifehacker.com/popcorn-time-the-movie-torrent-streaming-app-comes-to-1640786156 49.151.12.174 (talk) 11:36, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much for such a detailed explanation. Further to this, I received this comment on my Talk page in the last 24 hours:

Popcorn Time's development has indeed split into two teams, the original Popcorn Time with loads of new dews and Time 4 Popcorn. These two pages have completely different social media accounts and web sites. (https://twitter.com/popcorntimetv and http://facebook.com/PopcornTimeTv versus https://twitter.com/Time4Popcorn and https://facebook.com/time4popcorn). The development crew is completely different as technology used, concept and strategy too. Also, Time 4 Popcorn is mostly closed source nowadays. Jessejarvi

I will look at the Lifehacker piece, as well as the social media links, to try and work out the best way to incorporate this knowledge into the article. Of course, other copyeditors are welcome to contribute. Regards, --Soulparadox (talk) 03:44, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

I've noticed someone going back over revisions and trying to remove any mention of the Popcorntime.io project in favor of Time4Popcorn and its new domain. It seems like they're trying to rewrite that section more like an ad for their project, and ignoring the fact that the original form at Popcorntime.io even exists, even though Popcorntime.io is a fork of the original project, still available to download, and supported on a community subreddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/ I've reverted one of those edits so at least it's mentioned, but people watching this article may want to be aware of it - it looks like the developers behind the new Time4Popcorn are trying to blot out the others' existence and boost their own, but that's supposition. --2601:A:2300:C0B3:F840:B3CD:713D:C2C0 (talk) 21:15, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Streaming and not streaming

Streaming means downloading content but not storing it locally. Instead, the content is immediately consumed (by a movie player application, for instance) and discarded.

This is what Popcorn and Torrent DOES NOT do.

Normally, to use Torrent to watch a movie you 1) download it and then 2) watch it. The movie is downloaded to your hard drive.

What Popcorn does is download, say, the first minute of the movie, and then letting you watch that. Before that minute is up, Popcorn will have downloaded the second minute of the movie, and is ready to seamlessly let you watch that. And so on.

This means it LOOKS LIKE you're skipping step one there, but really, you're not. This is NOT streaming. The content lands on your hard drive.

You can even tell Popcorn to not delete the movie after you're done watching it. But even if you let Popcorn delete it after you're done watching (the default), it still spent time on your hard drive. It was still shared on the torrent protocol during the time you watched it.

This is NOT streaming. In fact, it is plain old torrenting.

The ONLY difference to regular torrenting is that 1) you don't have to wait for the entire movie to download before you start watching it, and 2) it is auto-deleted for you when you're done. In all other aspects, using Popcorn is EXACTLY like using any other torrent client. Please proceed accordingly*. CapnZapp (talk) 12:34, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

• ) when you edit the article, of course. What did you think?

Do not put any content referring to forks outside of the Forks section!

Popcorntime has many forks, but the main version is at 0.2.0.

The popcorntime.io version is at [0.3.7-2](https://git.popcorntime.io/popcorntime/desktop/blob/master/package.json), and the popcorn-time.se version is at [0.4.4a](http://popcorn-time.se/source.html), and other forks are at different versions.

If you change the version or other information to refer to a specific fork, you are violating neutrality, and endorsing a specific fork above another one! If you are associated with a fork and admins find out, you will be banned from wikipedia.

Keep the information about forks in the Forks section.

Teemome (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Popcorn Time is alive and current

Read the following:

"And when it comes to the latter, it turns out Popcorn Time isn’t just a tiny little piracy tool. The industry has taken notice and now Netflix, the biggest streaming movie and TV show service in the world, has directly named Popcorn Time as a threat." http://bgr.com/2015/01/22/netflix-vs-popcorn-time/

Now, tell me why the Wikipedia article should focus on the original software only?

What Wikipedia policy says "forks" should be compartmentalized and lead section information kept obsolete and outdated?

No.

I propose this article to present an unbiased and complete overview of all programs called Popcorn Time, as long as they have achieved notability.

The detail about Popcorn Time initially being developed by X and now existing as a fork is just that, a detail. A historic detail in fact, that in no way should influence our lead section.

CapnZapp (talk) 18:49, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Historically, forks are considered separate things, and just because the name of the forks is the same, doesn't change the fact that it's a fork. In fact, it IS wikipedia policy to keep forks separate from main pages about the program. Look at Webkit and Blink (layout engine), or Debian and Ubuntu. If you think that forks and parent programs should always be in the same section, try merging the Debian and Ubuntu wikipedia pages and come back to me with how that goes. Hint: It won't go well.

Also, the wikipedia article is NOT out of date. The app stopped development, and the app is out of date, not the wikipedia article. If you think that the wikipedia article is out of date, go convince the original developers to make the application not-obsolete, and refrain from adding incorrect data about the original application.

I don't think fact that the original developers openly SHUT DOWN an open source program, and that other people copied the old source code and picked up the scraps should be considered "a minor detail". Changing ownership is extremely important, and it marks the end of the era. The fall of the French Empire and having the Bourbon Restoration having the French Monarchy taking over isn't a minor detail, it's considered a large turning point that deserves another wiki page. I can make a similar point here that even though both are referred to as "France", they are very different and have different wikipedia articles. Similarly, the original open source PopcornTime is very different from the commercial closed source time4popcorn, and linking blog posts that refers to the latter in a discussion about the former is rather ignorant.

This really isn't up for debate when the references used are wrong. You can argue for a present based article, but backing up your argument with blogspam written by authors who don't understand that the program is fundamentally different, from posts on Gizmodo etc etc, invalidates and is very detrimental to your plan.

Basically, the only thing that's still the same from the old and new PopcornTime is the name. The new ones are forks, and forks shouldn't be conflated with the original program. Teemome (talk) 01:55, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Here's a current news article for you: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-26/popcorn-time-torrent-app-makes-piracy-easier-than-ever It's just one out of many examples of the contemporary coverage from valid sources Popcorn Time is getting.

Now you explain which Wikipedia article should cover the application discussed by the Bloomberg article, or the application that has the Dutch antipiracy agency in fits. As long as that article is the one you arrive at when searching for "popcorn time" (or getting here from Google) I'll happily edit it, and leave your original app in peace.

I am well aware the original app is no longer active. The point is that there is an application getting huge coverage by good sources that are not well covered by Wikipedia, and it is this problem I would like you to address.

If you want to make a separate article covering the original version only I will certainly not stop you. But the current state of the article, especially the lead, is confusing if not outright deceiving.

Having users searching for "popcorn time" arrive at an article written in the past tense as if the program isn't alive and kicking right now is outright deceiving and needs to be corrected pronto.

Saying "Since then, Popcorn Time has been forked by several other development teams to maintain the program" is very confusing to non-technical readers. is it alive or isn't it? The point is that there exists a program (in fact several) called "Popcorn Time" that is currently active and working. This fact is much more important than the program's history and that it's original programmers ended development at a certain point in time. At the very least, the article needs to state outright it is about the original version and not the current ones as discussed by mainstream media complete with a highly visible link to an article discussing the present situation.

CapnZapp (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel that there is additional information that deserves to be on wikipedia, then it is your impetus to create that article. For the Bloomberg article, for example, a page called "Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io)" or something would be the proper place for the reference. Or keep it in the Forks section of this page! The Forks section does not need to be in past tense.

I disagree with "Having users searching for "popcorn time" arrive at an article written in the past tense as if the program isn't alive and kicking right now is outright deceiving and needs to be corrected pronto."

The program is NOT ALIVE. The webpage at http://getpopcornti.me/ makes that extremely clear. There are many news articles currently in the references that clearly refers to the original program that was shut down, and references and news articles about popcorntime.io or popcorn-time.se is talking about something else, **which just happens to share the same name**. Either the former stays, or the latter stays, and it seems crazy to remove the former.

Remember, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an advertisement website. The historical information about Popcorntime and piracy is more important than current news about some fork releasing an Android version or whatever. The prototypical use case for this article is a student writing an article on the legality of file sharing, and it makes complete sense to refer to the original popcorntime and its shutdown only, which was a landmark historical point.

On a more secondary level, it also is more clean to minimize the mention of current forks in the article, and refer to Popcorntime the original program as past tense. If you blend in the original program and new forks as "one thing", it becomes very easy for the owners of the forks to astroturf the article in order to spam their own fork of Popcorntime, the random spanish version of Popcorntime at the bottom is a good example. The popcorntime.io version is at [0.3.7-2](https://git.popcorntime.io/popcorntime/desktop/blob/master/package.json), and the popcorn-time.se version is at [0.4.4a](http://popcorn-time.se/source.html). I'm sure the "Cuevana Storm" and "Popcorn Express" forks also mentioned on this page are on different versions, too. Which one is the "right" one, when all of them are just forks of the main program?

Therefore, this page needs to not pick between any of the forks. Instead, keep the version at the version the original popcorn time was at before it was shut down, keep the references in the main part of the article to the original popcorn time, etc. **If a reader is confused** by the usage of past tense, then they can just read the article- the article itself explains that the original popcorntime was shut down, and current ones are just forks. It is natural for a reader to be confused before reading an article- after all, they're going to wikipedia to learn more about the subject in the first place! You should not be confusing the readers even more by saying "popcorntime was shut down", and then using mixed present and past tense.

Teemome (talk) 00:40, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for replying, Teemome. Before I proceed further, let me just clarify my concern and the suggestion I perceive is your preferred solution to that concern:

My concern is that a reader hearing about "this popcorn thing" in 2015 comes to Wikipedia to learn more about the program. But instead of finding out more about the current situation, he or she is given the impression the program is dead - even though the news source that led him/her here clearly is speaking about a program that is alive and functioning. My concern is specifically that the current lead is misleading, talking about "popcorn time" as if it is a dead program.

A reader of this page should NOT be assumed to already know there are several versions of what is called "popcorn time". A reader of this page should not first be given the impression "popcorn time" is defunct, only to later on learn that "forks" still live on.

Is is correct for me to assume that your solution would be to create more articles named, for example, Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io) (link is deliberately red)?

Because if it is, I see several problems with this:

First and foremost, why is it so out of the question to have this article (named "Popcorn Time") cover ALL versions of the program, past and present?

Secondly, would a page such as "Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io)" really be sustainable? Most info would be a repeat of the info here. I feel any effort would be wasted, as some other editor would eventually request a delete or merge back here.

Thirdly, would you and others be prepared to allow a prominent hatnote on this page along the lines of "this is about the original, defunct, program. For the notable, current, fork, see Popcorn Time (popcorntime.io)"? CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

As for all your other points, such as neutrality: I don't intend to violate any Wiki policies. I just want to get an article that mirrors the contemporary situation despite the (in my view) insignificant detail that is "the forks have retained the same name as the original". A good solution should make it clear to the reader that any language talking about the article subject in the past tense refers to some defunct version only, and not the versions that are still very much alive.

More in general: How could it be that Wikipedia haven't solved this problem already? Surely this isn't the first case where Program X goes dead, but another program lives on but using the same name Program X? I would love to see how this was solved previously.

Again thank your for your reply, and I would appreciate any further discussion in arriving at a article that doesn't violate policy yet provides up to date (notable, sourced) information. CapnZapp (talk) 09:52, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I'd respond to your point about "Surely this isn't the first case where a Program X goes dead...", since it has interesting legal implications. The issue (And reason why) that most forks select a different name is that the original developers still hold the copyrighted assets and trademarks to the original program. This is related to why Debian forked Firefox to make Iceweasel, for example; Debian did not want to redistribute the trademarked version.

However, for Popcorntime, there is no legal threat. The original developers stayed mostly anon, and were were facing legal issues with the program. The forks that ended up using the name of the original program don't have to worry about the original developers suing the fork, so they keep the name of the program in order to ride on the publicity and brand awareness of the original program, get increased google search position, etc.

Therefore... there's not much precedent for organizing this article.

That said, there are two main types of people who would come to the Popcorntime wikipedia page: people who need to write a paper on popcorntime and copyright, and people who are trying to figure out which version of popcorntime to get for their personal purposes.

The former group wouldn't care if the article was in past tense or not, as long as it is accurate, and contains the legal issues that popcorntime was involved in. This group of people don't care much about the forks at all- the forks aren't really under the pressure by the MPAA that the original popcorntime was.

The latter group cares a lot more about the current forks, but Wikipedia is not the place for an advertisement platform for each of the forks. If these people were actually interested enough in which client to pick that they were researching the subject on the wikipedia article, they would probably be interested in knowing the actual state of the program- that is, it was discontinued, and current versions are forks of the original program.

Either way, the general focus is on learning more about the subject, rather than immediate information on the latest update of whatever fork. Wikipedia isn't really the place to announce "oh by the way, version 1.2.3 now has iphone streaming capability!" or something.

Literally the only people that would benefit from confounding the original popcorntime and the forks together, and keep them updated, would be... the people who are running the forks, and advertising for them. Everyone else would be more interested in a fair representation.

98.210.147.206 (talk) 17:15, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Time for a change

Popcorn time is now some sort of open source franchise, you could compare it to linux, which has a page in spite of forks. The fact that linux has forks and is no longer used in the original form does not make Wikipedia refer to it in the past tense. Nor does the fact that no one just has "linux" anymore, but rather one of the forks.

The PT original code as I understand it, underlies all the forks, and they are therefore PT just as much as the forks of linux are linux.

Even the latest at TorrentFreak refers to it as "the Popcorn Time brand." I therefore propose renaming the article Popcorn Time brand or Popcorn Time and forks. This pretense that the article is about the original version of the program is out-dated. There's an argument above about trying to merge "Debian" and "Ubuntu." It's not a relevant argument, because it compares merging forks with each other to merging forks with the original program. "Debian" and "Ubuntu" would be merged to "Linux" except for space requirements.

It's also irrelevant that the original coders "shut down" PT. That's just a bump in the road for an open source program. The brand and the code lived on, and the forks are no less the original. B^e——C_ritical 14:39, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

No objections from me. CapnZapp (talk) 15:13, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

"There's an argument above about trying to merge "Debian" and "Ubuntu." It's not a relevant argument, because it compares merging forks with each other to merging forks with the original program."

I'm not sure if you realize that Ubuntu IS a fork of Debian, which are both operating systems built with the Linux kernel. Here's a graph if you don't understand how Ubuntu was built off of Debian; they are not equal forks: http://futurist.se/gldt/wp-content/uploads/12.10/gldt1210.svg

Also, Ubuntu and Debian aren't forks of Linux, they're built off of the Linux kernel. What you are suggesting is like merging PopcornTime with the node.js page, which makes no sense.

At any rate, there's a bunch of accounts trying to get the popcorn time wiki page to point to their own fork. This includes removing the entire "discontinuation" section of the wiki page, to make it look as if popcorntime was never discontinued, and the forks are not operated by different entities. Look at this, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=656947292&oldid=656507835

I would not open up the page for all the forks to run rampage, until the people who are astroturfing the wiki page are gone.

Teemome (talk) 11:37, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Point taken about Ubuntu and Debian not being forks of linux itself. The original problem, now fixed, was that people were trying to phrase the lead as if popcorn time no longer existed. Whether it was actually true or not, that felt to me and others as if someone had a beef against the program, most likely on copyright grounds. I'll try to be around to prevent anyone from trying to favor one fork over another like you describe. I do however suggest that the template is inappropriate in this case, as it's all about the original program and the article is more about forks/current programs. Isn't there any infobox that takes such things into account? B^e——C_ritical 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I was the person who initiated the use of past tense in this article (back when I reformatted the entire forks section to split out content), and it was unrelated to copyright issues. I don't think describing the article in past tense is inaccurate. That being said, the template is kinda off, but there's not much you can do about it since this is a unique situation wrt IP rights. Again, keeping the article about the original program isn't a bad thing- the point of wikipedia is to be an encyclopedia, not a review blog. Keeping track of information about the old program is perfect for wikipedia, since websites like TorrentFreak can be on top of all the new releases and stuff- if Wikipedia doesn't keep track of the old information, then nobody will. Plus, keeping the old program and its legal controversies in the foreground is great for people using Wikipedia to research the legal issues that made popcorntime famous. The old program is what makes this article pass WP:Notability, not the new forks (that's why the forks aren't each a separate page yet), so it makes no sense for the article to discuss the new forks and less of the old program.Teemome (talk) 20:22, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Popcorntime.ws is spam

This is pretty easy to see. Popcorntime.ws has advertisements, and its download page is nothing more than a rehost of the popcorntime.io files.

Check https://www.popcorntime.ws/download for the files. Notice that the Windows download, https://www.popcorntime.ws/files/Popcorn-Time-0.3.7.2-Setup.exe is the same exact file as the one from popcorntime.io

Since Wikipedia is not in the business of contributing to spammers, I'm removing that link. If they prove that they're a real fork- (simple enough if you're a real fork, just get a reputable news website to report on your activities), then they could put the link back. Teemome (talk) 11:19, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't think the .ws website (read: https://www.popcorntime.ws/) is spam. The website seems to be an extended version of the original website. It has all the downloads, including an iOS download. Also, the website is linked to the Popcorn Time database to display the most popular/newest movies and TV Shows. It also displays information about said movies and TV Shows, like trailers, screens, descriptions and data. It also gives information about using Popcorn Time in combination with a Chromecast. The website has additional information which the original website does not provide. Therefore, I think it would be justified to add this link. ProducerMark (talk) 15:05, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

It's literally a rehost of the popcorntime.io client with advertisement plastered over the website. I can make a website called "popcorn shit" and copy some other fork's installer files and claim it's an extended version too. If a reputable source (aka not a blog) reports on it, then that can be used as a reference, but otherwise unreferenced material should be removed. 107.3.187.213 (talk) 00:26, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

WS doesn't provide the sources although it provides GNU-licensed material. It uses the exact same (outdated) files as IO for the downloads of Win/Linux/OSX/Android and the files from SE for iOS, yet it does not refer to any of those 2 teams. Seems just like a mirror, at best, or a spam, at worst. 185.94.29.102 (talk) 11:46, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

The downloaded version of Popcorn-Time on popcorn-time.ws does contain viruses. I remove the website from this page, as I don't think Wikipédia is intended to trap its users. See here :

• https://www.virustotal.com/fr/file/6631c7e76c7e98efc4c5fecd765f595bf8753eba750266abde0bc8463df3bcff/analysis/1442696791/
• Jiangmin : Trojan/Vobfus.aelt, McAfee : Artemis!F471955FDA84, McAfee-GW-Edition : Artemis

I hope you will accept my doing. 108.60.216.202 (talk) 22:25, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Add reference to Showbox?

Another similar service for the Android is called Showbox. Should we add a reference to it in this article?

Topher67 (talk) 02:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Popcorntime and spammers

The popcorntime wiki page is pretty interesting in that there is a bunch of edits made by people with different interests, that's completely non-political. Wikipedia takes pride in keeping articles neutral, and not biased by any outside influence. Remember, this wikipedia article is about the historically-significant original "Popcorn Time" app, created in 2014. There are now many other movie torrenting apps, some of them based off the "Popcorn Time" name, but these apps belong on this page as much as the newest SpaceX rockets belong on the wiki page for the first rocket ever made.

Notably, there are a bunch of spammers who use the "Popcorn Time" name and trademark in order to make money (via advertisements, sponsored VPN deals, distributing malware, etc). There's a very long history of different websites spamming their links on this page. Here are some examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=681815665&oldid=681804053 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=666015740&oldid=666009818 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=643737636&oldid=643615969 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=637761615&oldid=637720113 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=632532279&oldid=632240283 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=631898075&oldid=631797507 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=631738304&oldid=631733239

As a general rule, if it's not directly related and forked from the original 2014 Argentine "Popcorn Time" at http://getpopcornti.me or its official successor at popcorntime.io, it's probably spam. These two projects are of interest, from a Wikipedia perspective, due to ongoing legal disputes with the MPAA, which are noteworthy. If you're a spammer and you're reading this, you can add your project to this page... after it gets sued by the MPAA and you get on mainstream news websites or TorrentFreak or something. Editors should take care to link to only neutral websites as references (like TorrentFreak) or link to project websites only when directly referring to the fork. Other than projects that are officially related to the 2014 Popcorn Time, other apps/websites/etc should be treated as spam and removed.

Teemome (talk) 13:55, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Differences between forks?

OK, as of now there appear to be two forks:

• http://popcorn-time.to (redirect from popcorn-time.se)
• http://popcorntime.sh (apparently a new incarnation of popcorntime.io)

Each have different beta versions available. It would be nice if this article could document how these forks are diverging, if at all. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

popcorntime.sh

I'm moving a section from my user talk page here, since it's of general interest to this article and things it bear relevance on were reinstated into the article by Teemome, who may be interested in reading it. Please reply here from now on, rather than on my talk page.

---

Hello,

I am contacting you directly to give you more accurate reference about the new website of Popcorn Time .io https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-hunted-popcorn-time-makes-surprise-comeback-160217/ http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/02/17/the-original-popcorn-time-is-back-from-the-dead-but-nobody-knows-whos-running-it/

I hope you can help

Thank you again for your time — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorntimetv (talk • contribs) 10:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@Popcorntimetv: Hi. It is definitely inappropriate to state that the "official Popcorn Time successor" is this one, because one of the very sources you just cited explicitly states that "nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app" and that "the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app" and even that "It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates.".

So in fact, signs point to this being all but an official successor. All that TorrentFreak claims, too, is that the original GitHub now points to the popcorntime.sh site (which again implies nothing). LjL (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

@LjL: Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official , Not wanting to disclose identity is something , Saying that It is not the same Fork is wrong as the update was signed by the .io team keys , Status page was changed accordingly , and Twitter account as well , i do not think we will be able to prove more ( without disclosing identity ) that that is simply a website swap after the MPA Fiasco — Preceding unsigned comment added by Popcorntimetv (talk • contribs)

@Popcorntimetv: but it is definitely not saying it is official, so you cannot say it is official. That's how Wikipedia works: you can only say things when reliable sources report those exact things. The "team keys" may have been appropriated by the MPAA and your source actually makes that suggestion. Wikipedia is not here to "prove" anything, as original research is not appropriate for Wikipedia; it is only here to report what reliable sources say, and your sources say that it is very dubious whether this is an official continuation of the original project by the same team. You just can't say something on Wikipedia when your own sources say the exact opposite - that's a non-starter. LjL (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Note: discussion has again been continued at my user talk page. Please continue it here from now on, for the reasons I've given here. I must confess I'm quite disappointed by seeing the unsourced (and actually, directly contradicted by sources) content reinstated again with discussion in progress, when this content could even be dangerous to users of the software who are potentially misled into thinking popcorntime.sh is the original project when we don't know that at all; my next step will be dispute resolution unless at least a temporary step back is made. LjL (talk) 15:30, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Here's an unambiguous source stating that popcorntime.io is back as popcorntime.sh. http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online The disputed tag should be removed now, since several new WP:RS secondary sources back up the statement. Teemome (talk) 07:04, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have requested the opinion of the folks at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. LjL (talk) 16:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Torrents Time

No mention of Torrents Time?

--Topher67 (talk) 21:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

It's not "Popcorn Time", is it? Teemome (talk) 07:05, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

No, but that linked article implies that Popcorn Time and Torrents Time may have had in common some closed-source module having security issues. The article mentions popcorntime.ag, what is that? It isn't mentioned in this Wikipedia article. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:06, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Streaming

What was that insistence in comments about not calling Popcorn Time "streaming"? Of course it can be considered "streaming". I don't know what that means "in a legal sense", because it's not a legal term at all, but in a technical sense, most/all streaming methods involve downloads that are more or less briefly cached and then presented to the user before the download is completed. That is also the case with BitTorrent as used by Popcorn Time (though not with traditional BitTorrent when files are not downloaded in sequential order and playback not started before finishing the download).

The very website that was presented above as a reliable source to show that .sh was a continuation of .io calls Popcorn Time "streaming": A Popcorn Time developer has made it easier than ever before to stream pirated movies and TV shows by placing the streaming service directly in your browser.

The "legal spinoff" of Popcorn Time, Butter, also calls itself "streaming" ("a streaming tech playground" in the page's title).

The Next Web, which was called a reliable source on WP:RSN, also calls it a streaming service: "A federal court in Oregon has granted a movie studio’s request to interrogate four users of the popular torrent streaming service Popcorn Time".

LjL (talk) 17:49, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I removed a number of hidden comments that declared how it was not streaming: [5]. As far as I can see it seems like a single or a handful of users who chose to ignore the popular interpretation of the word and are hell bent on only allowing their interpretation — according to which anything which includes buffering is not streaming — which disqualifies Netflix and similar services as well. Distrait cognizance (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Popcorn Time. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://getpopcornti.me/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:53, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Authorship

One of the creators of Popcorn time (formerly called "Sebastian") is Federico Abad, just as it appears in these publications:

• http://www.dn.no/magasinet/2015/09/07/1606/Popcorn-Time/inside-popcorn-time--the-worlds-fastest-growing-piracy-site
• http://uk.businessinsider.com/popcorn-time-creator-federico-abad-reveals-his-identity-2015-9
• http://www.theverge.com/2015/9/10/9300083/popcorn-time-creator-sebastian-frederico-abad
• http://gizmodo.com/the-creator-of-popcorn-time-finally-revealed-himself-1729548055

I'll be adding him to the "Original Author(s)" section in a jiffy.

--Julianrod (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Given the above sources from reliable publications, I am at a loss understanding why Popcorntimetv undid Julianrod's edit that added this information. Edit summaries instead of unexplained reverts are always welcome, but coming from an editor with a username that suggests a COI with the subject and/or representing an organization, I'm starting to be a bit annoyed by it all. LjL (talk) 14:18, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop/commits/development?page=169 the original author wasn't abadfederico (Federico Abad), it was kerberoS (Diego Peralta). Most of the first commits, in addition to the initial commit, appear to be by kerberoS as well. I can definitely see an argument for a different original author.

Also, alternatively, the author can be removed from the sidebar. It's not really an important part of the program. 50.161.55.246 (talk) 13:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The github page you linked to appears to be a fork of the Butter Project, which is in turn a "legal spinoff" of Popcorn Time, so I'm not sure how it would show what you claim. What you really need if you want to challenge authorship is reliable sources reporting on it. For now, we have perfectly decent sources claiming the author is Federico Abad.

I also strongly object that the author is not important; I'd say it's very imortant, and it should not be removed from the infobox or article without a very good, policy-backed reason. LjL (talk) 13:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't think you understand how Git works. It's hosted on the Butter page, but it's the exact same git repo as it was in 2014 with the original PopcornTime. Look at the dates of the git commits, they're from 2014, and predate Butter by a lot. This is actually very accurate information showing you the early history of the project. Teemome (talk) 22:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's also obviously a WP:SELFPUB WP:PRIMARY source while we have several WP:SECONDARY sources talking about this matter, cited above. LjL (talk) 22:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not WP:Selfpub, although it is WP:PRIMARY. However, wikipedia explicitly does not ban primary sources. Since this is an accurate record of the git history though, and could be enough to move "creator" status into doubt as "controversial". The choice of WP:SECONDARY source for the original author sucks, too; it's Business Insider, which may as well as be blogspam. The original source (from the Business Insider post) is a Torrentfreak article [[6]], which notably doesn't describe Abad as the original creator, but merely a manager who "had coordinated a project" among his group of friends. Abad did indeed take control over the project, and became the major controller: “The project gathered so much attention that the developers completely freaked out. They said ‘this has become too big for us.’ The entire core team dropped out and I was left alone” and "Not backing down, Abad managed to rebuild a team made up of contributors around the globe".

Nonetheless, Abad never takes credit for being the original creator of PopcornTime, although others do call him that. To his credit, he appears to be the largest organizer of PopcornTime in the early days, if not the actual creator as the git repo shows. Teemome (talk) 02:49, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Whether he takes credit is less relevant than whether WP:RS call him the author. Github is definitely WP:SELFPUB, since Github itself exercises virtually no editorial control over what account holders do on their (self-managed) projects, and also, we have no way of assigning definite real-life identities to Github accounts, since we are not Github or the judicial. Above, there are four secondary sources given for the author, not just Business Insider. For example, The Verge (not a blog) unequivocally calls Abad the creator. You can take these four sources to WP:RSN if you think they are all to be discredited, but otherwise, they seem pretty compelling. LjL (talk) 21:39, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not too interested in actually changing the article, but find it important to note the inconsistencies and try to get the facts right.

Github code and comments are selfpub, but I don't think the Git metadata is considered WP:SELFPUB. We're talking about who and when the project code was contributed, not what was in the contribution. This is similar to the difference between referencing "the earth is flat" to a twitter post, and referencing "user x says that the earth is flat" to a twitter post. The first case is obviously false and a bad reference, whereas the latter is different.

The metadata in the git repository is hashed and signed many times, and editing it is technologically impossible without invalidating all commits past that one.

I can also make compelling arguments against the sources provided. One of the sources listed in the wiki page actually predates Abad revealing himself- it's just an article saying "Popcorntime is Netflix for pirates" and attributes it to the pseudonym. Let's remove that from consideration for now.

The problem with most of the other sources, of course, is that they aren't independent. Business Insider is a news blog that operates mostly reposting stuff, and the Verge is a bit better but still suffers from a similar problem in this case- they're actually tertiary sources in this case, and are just referencing the Torrentfreak article. The actual origin of their content is from Torrentfreak and a translated interview; very notably, Torrentfreak subtly avoids explicitly calling Abad as the creator of Popcorntime.

The exact language used by Torrentfreak is very interesting, if you're purposefully seeking for it: "The original driving force behind Popcorn Time has broken cover." "He had coordinated a project which would to some degree change the piracy landscape". The terms used for Abad. "the original driving force", "coordinated", etc, would be the phrasing used for the case he was the key leader of the project while not being the first founder per se. Business Insider, on the other hand, had no trouble putting words into Torrentfreak's mouth. Of course, using Verge/BI/etc is still considered an acceptable reference for Wikipedia purposes, but it is worth pointing out that they should be considered tertiary sources and have possible flaws in the interpretation.

Therefore, I propose an alternative perspective. Given the git repo history (which cannot be forged), the fact Torrentfreak states they were in contact with Abad (contrast with Verge/BI/etc) and carefully does not call him the creator, and the fact that Abad recognizes himself as a designer not a programmer... these all point to the idea that Abad was not the "original author" who wrote the first code for Popcorn Time. 50.161.55.246 (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 May 2016

 Old inactive website removed. LjL (talk) 00:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Why the official website steal appears as popcorntime.sh although it was removed completely from the page source? The official website should be removed completely. Roambox (talk) 09:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 May 2016

Remove Title: "Popcorn-Time.se (formerly Time4Popcorn.eu)" Replace Title by: "Popcorn-Time.se (potentially malicious)" Add: "Popcorn-time.se was previously known as time4popcorn.eu." to the beginning of the paragraph.

Add: "This fork, however, was known to have malicious software in the past. Currently, it seems to be removed. Their website shows a source code, however, this source code is of an old version and is outdated. No up-to-date source code is available, so it is unclear whether the software still (or will) contain malicious code."

Reason: Popcorn-time.se (or popcorn-time.to or time4popcorn.eu (all the same)) used to have malware in their code. Users need to be careful by using this software, as it is closed source and it has an auto-updater. Source: It's all over Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTime/comments/2lyxnm/time4popcorn_popcorntimese_now_includes_adware_do/. ProducerMark (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done: Reddit is not a reliable source and while this may be accurate, it sounds very much like original research. LjL (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 May 2016

The website entry in the infobox was removed from the source code of the page. But although there is no mention to it in the source code, the `popcorntime.sh` still appears as the website in the infobox. Can someone please fix it and remove the website entry completely? Thank you.

Roambox (talk) 08:08, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Not done — it is referenced. Distrait cognizance (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 May 2016

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Popcorn_Time&type=revision&diff=718850672&oldid=717736179 Reinstate Line 7 as before the incident

We already gone this way ... there are enough sources who says the .sh is the new official one https://torrentfreak.com/mpaa-hunted-popcorn-time-makes-surprise-comeback-160217/ http://thenextweb.com/apps/2016/02/17/the-original-popcorn-time-is-back-from-the-dead-but-nobody-knows-whos-running-it/#gref http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online

Thank you Alicewonderz (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done: see above — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:14, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Distrait cognizance (talk) 11:09, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 May 2016

URL should be semantically valid , it should be or https://popcorntime.sh ( valid ) or http://popcorntime.sh ( Redirecting) and not just popcorntime.sh It is failing on MicroData Validation Alicewonderz (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

 Done Changed to the HTTPS variant (as preferred by policy). Note that the infobox will still just show popcorntime.sh to the user, because that's expected infobox behavior. LjL (talk) 14:12, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

@Alicewonderz: I have restored the situation as it was before you edited it after acquiring autoconfirmation, because of the reason stated above: showing only popcorntime.sh without the http(s):// header is expected and correct behavior. You can see at Template:URL that it says Parameter 2 is deprecated, "parameter 2" being the one you used to specify a particular text to be shown instead of the default one (which stripped the https://). In addition, Template:Infobox software, which is the infobox being used, specifically states that you should use {{URL}} template like this: "{{URL|http://www.example.com}}" (without a second parameter). All in all, basically every infobox on Wikipedia follows this format, it's the standard format, and it should be used here too. What is the actual problem with this "MicroData Validation" you mentioned? Is it relevant to Wikipedia? LjL (talk) 15:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Reverts

@107.3.187.213 - Your revert was very uncool, You can add your comments to the talk or change the references, but don't just undo everything. For the last 6 months http://popcorn-time.se is permanently redirecting to their new .to domain. That is the domain now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Composer3d (talk • contribs) 08:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Family tree

Popcorn Time lineage
Popcorn Time getpopcorntime.me (dead) Time4Popcorn (closed source) time4popcorn.eu popcorn-time.se popcorn-time.to popcorn-time.tw Popcorn Time (official, dead) popcorntime.io Popcorn Time CE (clone community edition) popcorn-time.is popcorntime.ag Popcorn Time CE (original community edition, dead) popcorntime.ml popcorntime.tk popcorntimece.ch Popcorn Time popcorntime.sh popcorntime.app

Someone recently added File:Popcorn Time, Infografia elolutiva.jpg to the article. There are some problems with this graphic:

• It's a graphic, and not easily maintained
• It seems to push a POV about what is malware and what is official
• I am not sure that the lineages in the graphic (.eu, .se, .to) are well established and agreed upon

As an alternative, I have started building a template Template:PopcornTimeTree, which can be seen on the right.

At the moment it basically just reproduces the information in the graphic, although I didn't include the malware indications. I suggest we work on this. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

"I am not sure that the lineages in the graphic (.eu, .se, .to) are well established and agreed upon"

I'm pretty sure the hierarchy of the graphic, nobody will complain about. It's pretty accurate in that regard. Teemome (talk) 23:15, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. What about the "official" status, and the one speculated to be fake? And what is "Community Edition" versus "Official" mean? The article doesn't really explain that. I mean, anyone who wanted to download the software today would have 3 choices, but there isn't really any information in the article to explain the differences. The article needs to explain some things to give meaningful context to the information in the tree. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:24, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

You're not going to get any answers because everything posted about this online would be considered WP:OR and thus not referenceable. That being said, the original official first version of popcorntime is getpopcornti.me (not disputed), and they declared popcorntime.io the official successor; this much can be referenced on torrentfreak. Then after the MPAA sued popcorntime.io and they shut down, a few of their developers created the official successor at popcorntime.sh (and revived the popcorntime.io facebook/twitter/github accounts). This part is in dispute because the people currently working on popcorntime.sh are staying anonymous (which makes sense from a legal perspective), which makes it difficult for any non-WP:OR source to confirm anything.

There's also a massive amount of conflict-of-interest... all of the other forks of popcorntime want to claim that they are legitimate, so they spread FUD about others and produce blog posts/sponsored news articles claiming that they are the real heir. It's almost like medieval Europe and a bunch of kings clamoring for a throne all over again. Neutral sites who are trustworthy, like torrentfreak, end up just stepping back and going "they might all be legitimate, we don't know". Honestly, if you want to know the truth, you kind of need to look at the original research and old webpages found on archive.org. Teemome (talk) 00:28, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

@Teemome: Thanks. Wikipedia has more leeway about original research for illustrations, so I'm not really striving for reliable sources here, but more of a community consensus. I think the article would benefit from having a diagram like that. I guess my real question is, what should go in it? We can probably all agree that the 3 boxes down the right-hand side of the figure represent the "official" lineage of the software. I have no idea what "Community Edition" means — it came from the original graphic that someone had uploaded to the article but isn't explained anywhere. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:15, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

It's just the title of the program. "Popcorn Time: Community Edition". It doesnt really mean anything. Technically, the 'official' popcorn time is community run as well; the "CE" moniker is just to distinguish it from the official version. Teemome (talk) 04:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

OK. I colored the "official" lineage green in the tree template, and made some other minor edits. I'll put it in the article and see how it goes. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:46, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Time4Popcorn Not Reference to New Domain while it was added

Time4Popcorn forced the new url into wikipedia without any valid reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.94.31.5 (talk) 12:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Vandalism by some Users

Can any one take a look on the current vandalism that being done by 2 users of wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.132.154 (talk) 10:18, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi IP - I've noticed your reverts and I have some comments. You're obviously rather familiar with the project -

• I've undone this edit as you introduced a file which doesn't exist. The timetree seems to summarise the legacy of Popcorn Time
• This edit of yours looks good, but should that other URL be mentioned?
• I believe the content you removed in this edit is somewhat legitimate. Could you explain why you removed it?

Cheers -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Hello @Samtar i am sorry for my quick revert but the other website is not open source they are taking the full code of popcorntime.sh without any reference back and giving a wrong information to users that maybe confused the Popcorntime.sh is offical fork you can check twitter.com/popcorntimetv they have added false information like MPAA controlled entity which is not true

can you please check ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.132.154 (talk) 10:29, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Also as you can see the Tree was tempred by the same users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:PopcornTimeTree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.132.154 (talk) 10:34, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

This appears to be a difficult topic - I'm personally not familiar enough with Popcorn Time's forks (though I have contributed to http://butterproject.org/). That being said I've just gone to the official Popcorn Time twitter and found this tweet which backs up your edits. I still believe the .ag site should perhaps have a mention but that's a discussion for another day. I've added a summary above for other interested editors -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

The above being said, I believe someone with some more experience in the matter should re-add the content you removed - @Anachronist: what do you think of this, as it's clear you're a little more familiar with the project? -- Samtar ^{talk · contribs} 10:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

We have two primary sources that contradict each other (this and this) regarding claims as to which one is "official" and which version contains malware. On Wikipedia, we cannot misuse primary sources in this way, so we absolutely cannot say anything about which version is official. We do have a fairly reliable source, however, that suggests a connection between the .sh version and the MPAA,[7] and this is encyclopedically relevant information that is validly cited.

From my perspective, it looks to me like we have a single-purpose anonymous IP bent on inserting a particular point of view into the article. That is not acceptable; we must remain neutral. It is not Wikipedia's job to serve as some sort of consumer watchdog to warn users of dangers of one or another particular version. All we can do is state what we find in reliable sources. Tweets and blogs are not reliable, especially when they are contradictory. ~Anachronist (talk) 17:07, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

MPAA Connection are you serious? The Popcorn Time .sh was using the Domain that was seized my MPAA to update old .io users using a Update Key that only Dev have and no MPAA have access

Not knowing who is running the .sh is not enough reason as only .sh is doing the right thing by Building the source from github and offer it to users , about .ag there is no one reliable source or reference that is citing this website please let me know if you find one !

i am not understanding the focus on .ag so suddenly they are not even referencing the code they are taking from the github.com/popcorn-official + popcorntime.sh is using the old tools that Popcorntime.io use ( Twitter , Status Page , Github ) i really dont see why .ag should be cited as there is not even one reliable reference that cite this website can you please explain ? @Anachronist PS : I am new to Wikipedia but i am also a known .io dev this can be verified easily ;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.204.132.154 (talk) 23:30, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

As I said, we can only report what we find in reliable sources. We can't report what you or me or any other Wikipedia user might claim. And we do have a valid source suggesting an MPAA connection. There's also some evidence on Reddit about the MPAA connection with popcorntime.sh, but that's considered a primary source and not desirable for citing in this article.

We also have a source about the community edition[8] although the .ag domain isn't actually mentioned there, for all I know it may not even be about popcorntime.ag, so I agree that paragraph about popcorntime.ag is pretty weak.

It looks like popcorntime.ag is now dead, but since it was one of the forks, it is still appropriate to mention. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

"community edition although the .ag domain isn't actually mentioned there" The link actually explicitly links to popcorntime.ml, which is the other community edition, not related popcorntime.ag. You can go ctrl-f ".ml" on that page. Teemome (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I should also ask: what is popcorntime-online.io and who's behind that? It requires Torrents Time, which has questionable safety. ~Anachronist (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The team that runs popcorntime-online.io is the same team that runs popcorn-time.to which was one of the original forks from the original popcorn time. However, they're closed source (which actually illegally violates the licence of the original popcorn time, hah... not that the original popcorntime have the legal ability to sue them) and for-profit. This includes advertisements on the pages, adware, sponsored vpns, etc. I'm not sure if the group is still active, actually, but at this point I don't think anyone is still active. Teemome (talk) 22:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

There's a lot of misinformation in this thread. Unfortunately, the truth is hidden in old git commits, etc. It doesn't help that various groups purposely publish false facts in order to distract from the truth.

Here's a text summary I saved of what happened, and there are a lot of citations at the bottom of the page: https://gist.github.com/anonymous/bb57c5933e3a414d35140ce4583a18a7

I'm tempted to straight up remove anything from popcorntime.ag from this page, because their claims are getting more absurd over time, and they have people purposefully creating even more fake claims. Teemome (talk) 21:56, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Popcorntime.ag should get at least a mention, if nowhere else then leave it in the family tree diagram.

By the way, I restored the "See also" links you removed. Both Porn Time and Zona (streaming video software) are related to Popcorn Time in their reliable source coverage, as described in the respective articles, so they are clearly relevant for the "See also" section. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:15, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Leaving ag in the family tree diagram is fine, which is the current status.

Removing the Porn Time and Zona links is a good idea, just because they're compared in a source to Popcorntime doesn't mean they're really related. There's a million different torrent streaming apps (strem.io, kodi plugins, etc) which doesn't need to populate the See Also section. Go to the "see also" section for Linux, and see if it shows every single operating system that's ever been compared to Linux. That said, I'm open to alternative suggestions for this though, if you can present a perspective that includes them. Teemome (talk) 10:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Per WP:SEEALSO, the "See also" section is intended for linking to relevant Wikipedia articles on similar subjects. In this case, the subject of software for real-time streaming of pirated content is the glue that binds Popcorn Time to Porn Time and Zona. Anyone reading about Popcorn Time would likely be interested in reading about alternatives such as Porn Time or Zona.

Porn Time is, at its core, basically another fork of Popcorn Time, apparently starting from the same codebase, with a focus on a genre that Popcorn Time omits. Therefore it's highly appropriate for "See also".

Zona (streaming video software) is also relevant, because it is nearly identical in function as Popcorn Time, and every source cited describes it in the context of Popcorn Time. You couldn't ask for a stronger linkage. That can't be said about strem.io and other things that don't even have Wikipedia articles. If there are any other streaming video pirate apps notable enough to merit their own Wikipedia article, they should be listed as well. ~Anachronist (talk) 07:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

The popcorn time community edition no longer works

The popcorn time community edition now links to a movie hosting site called Afdah. https://popcorn-time.is/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.163.58.98 (talk) 14:48, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

sources for the domain .sh

hello just for who may be interested there are more sources for the .sh domain i cannot edit the page without account so here it is incase anyone thinks it need to be added — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.213.186.249 (talk) 00:29, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Popcorn Time interface.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 18:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Which fork (and URL) to display in the infobox

Posting here per the lock warning: have gone and changed the URL to "https://getpopcorntime.is/", it's what comes up first when I Google "Popcorn Time". La Baton (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

I know the URL has been changed back and forth a lot, but I have still not seen a clear justification for exclusively giving it to popcorntime.app and not getpopcorntime.is. According to alexa getpopcorntime.is is just as popular, if not more popular than popcorntime.app. I use both apps actually, sometimes only one app has a movie that I want and the other app doesn't, and sometimes the case is vice versa, so I am not rooting for either side in this argument. I just think that either both projects should be included in the URL, or neither project should be. 70.27.1.229 (talk) 04:13, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Two arguments can be made in favour of listing popcorntime.app over getpopcorntime.is:

• The URL getpopcorntime.is currently does not appear in the main article. Readers should be able to read more about the fork listed in the infobox. This is especially important since there are multiple forks.
• The PopcornTime.app/PopcornTime.sh fork shares its source code on a public platform (Github), which allows for public discussion and contribution and insight in the project's history. GetPopcornTime.is offers its source code in a downloadable .zip , which does not allow for the same transparency. (Also note GetPopcornTime.is' claim that they "can't publish it on Github anymore". They do not explain why this would be an issue for them, but not for PopcornTime.app.)

The first issue could be resolved by updating the main article. Upon quick inspection popcorn-time.se seems to now forward to getpopcorntime.is . This seems to have been the case since late 2018/early 2019. Possibly it is new URL of the same fork. Note however, that there is no mention of this on getpopcorntime.is' blog page. More research is needed.

The second issue is not as easy to resolve, but others may disagree with my emphasis on (the history of) public discussion and contribution.

I also think it is important to note that this is not (just) a popularity contest of URLs. It remains important to describe the forks that exist out there, documenting their history, teams, communities, etc.

HansCronau (talk) 16:26, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Two counter-arguments to the arguments above:

• The fact that someone arbitrarily gave undue weight to a Github repo on a Wikipedia article a long time ago does not mean it must stay this way. Wikipedia content must be backed up by reliable sources, and as far as I know, there are no reliable sources saying that popcorntime.app is the one and only official url. Wikipedia articles can be improved over time. A consensus on the url should be reached based on which one is more beneficial to the future of the article, independently from the existing state of the article.
• The fact that popcorntime.app is able to post its source code on Github (if that should matter at all) can also be viewed as an argument against its legitimacy. I don't see any motive getpopcorntime.is would lie about not being able to publish on Github. They have the source code, it doesn't take more effort to publish it on Github. The likely reason is that popcorn time is piracy software, and Github does not allow piracy software. If Github banned getpopcorntime.is but not popcorntime.app, that means Github considers getpopcorntime.is the original version of the software which engages in piracy, whereas they do not consider popcorntime.app legitimate or do not believe it is important enough to be a threat. Either way, as you noted, it is a valid question if whether a software is open-sourced on Github is relevant to whether it is considered official. If I start an open source photoshop on Github, I obviously don't expect anyone to consider my version official and for Wikipedia to link to my website instead of Adobe's.

I am not taking a side either. For completeness and getting different perpectives, here are a few arguments in favour of listing getpopcorntime.is over popcorntime.app:

• popcorntime.app is currently down , has been down for at least 2 days , and is frequently down in general. If someone comes to this article and just wants to download any popcorn time and watch movies, having a url that is inaccessible half the time is not helpful to most readers.
• If a site is ranked first on Google, that means more than just this site is more popular. Google ranks website by over 200 factors. Among others, it means that the site is more relevant, more secure, more trustworthy, better reputation etc. And it's not just Google. getpopcorntime.is is verifiably ranked first on Bing, DuckDuckGo, Yahoo, and Yandex.
• This is not a popularity contest, but solely from a statistics perspective, since getpopcorntime.is is more popular, if 10000 random people visit this article, it is statistically more likely that they are looking for is getpopcorntime.is. I recognize that doesn't matter on its own. However, if all else is equal, then getpopcorntime.is should be listed because it will benefit more readers.
• No matter which side you are leaning towards, note that popcorntime.app is sponsored by private VPN company VPN.ht (This fact is in the article too). Since there is a commercial component involved, there is motive for people to be paid to edit on popcorntime.app's behalf. I am not saying anyone here is, but to keep Wikipedia free and independent, both sides should exercise caution when reading arguments on this topic.

99.224.177.80 (talk) 18:48, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

Your points are taken and understood, but the reasoning of switching it to .is vs .app is not sound. If I Google "popcorntime" right now, it brings me to .app as the first listing, with .is as the second. If I Google "popcorn time", it shows .is as the first listing, with .app as the second.

• Also to add on to it, Wikipedia is not serving as an advertisement for either fork. The .app fork just so happened to be the fork included because most consider it to be the successor to .sh. That being said, Wikipedia's purpose is to serve as an information site, not an advertisement for any fork, service, or business, regardless of any legality aspects of it. If we're basing our decision on whether users are able to go download Popcorn Time from a link on the page, the website should be removed from the infobox entirely, considering the amount of forks.
• Everything being said, repeated editing after it's been edited back is considered edit warring and is against Wikipedia CoC. Please refrain from making any edits from the currently stated version until a consensus is made on the future of the URL in the infobox.

Nigel757 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

References

"Popcorn Time" is the proper spelling of the software. The results of "popcorntime" is not relevant because no one would Google "popcorntime" unless they made a typo. If you change how you spell a word, it is no longer the same word. This is a somewhat extreme example, but imagine if someone Googled "the rapist" when they are looking for a therapist (or vice versa).

I absolutely agree Wikipedia should not serve as an advertisement for either fork. If Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral, I find it weird to give preference to the less popular fork, that sounds like the definition of advertising to me.

You then claimed that "The .app fork just so happened to be the fork included because most consider it to be the successor to .sh". However, according to the same article you linked, it is "considered by SOME to be the official successor to the original software." The term "most" implies majority, which is not supported by the article. Furthermore, that is only one article, which is kind of cherrypicking. For every article that links to the .app fork, I could equally provide an article that links to the .is fork.

I would not be opposed to removing the website from the infobox entirely. Another possible solution is putting both websites in the infobox. However, if we are going to pick and choose, then there should be a clear justification. I have made the case for getpopcorntime.is. I have yet to see an argument for popcorntime.app that is convincing and I haven't refuted.

I apologize if I was edit warring. I simply believed putting the .is url in the infobox made more sense. I'm not sure why .app deserves to be in the infobox until consensus is made (as opposed to the other way around), but if that's Wikipedia's policy, I will respect it.

In order to have a meaningful discussion, an important requirement is that there must be something that can change each participant's mind. If one of us has already taken a side and decided that nothing can change their mind, then there is no point in having a discussion. Again, I have not taken a side. I think your argument that "most consider popcorntime.app to be the successor to the original" potentially has merit to it. If it is clearly proven, with evidence, that most consider .app the successor (as in at least 51%, such that it is more common to consider .app the successor than the other way around), then I will concede and support keeping .app in the infobox. Now that I explained what will change my mind, can you explain what will change your mind on this topic? I want to remind you that last time you said, in exact quotes "If there's evidence that the other domain is the more popular version, I'm happy to accept the edit." Well, here is the evidence. I can let you ask for different evidence one time, but if you keep moving goalposts, it's impossible to have a discussion.

99.224.177.80 (talk) 00:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

References

I must agree that .app version is often down. But, .is website is more like an alternative that came around during the time when the original version was taken down. It does look sketchy by their design, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was malicious. I must say that having a verified repo on GitHub is a positive guideline to which website is more reliable. If we cannot include the .app version, then we can just include a link on GitHub where the latest version can be obtained. Vs⁶₅⁰⁷ 22:06, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It appears we have reached a consensus. GitHub repository will serve as the infobox website. GitHub is a more trusted source link anyway, and there's a lot less of a chance (although not zero) that something malicious is added to the page. Nigel757 (talk) 03:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

That's not consensus. Two people who actively have a stake in the discussion agreeing with each other is not consensus. If you want to claim consensus, more opinions should be heard and only a neutral, uninvolved person should be able to claim consensus. 99.228.137.65 (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

The version of 10. February 2021 is confusing, as the info box text/links refer to the .app version and only mentions .is as the website. (Not even the version number matches) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:1715:4E3F:C570:A94F:7E0D:EC2B:3B7E (talk) 11:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 June 2021

Edit 2.5 to remove popcorntime.io - this site is no longer active. Thatbenmiller (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: That doesn't mean it wasn't the successor. The next section explains that the site is now defunct. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:05, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

ENTIRELY FALSE AND MISLEADING: On January 5, 2022, Popcorn Time was shut down due to "a lack of use".[9]

The website Popcorntime.tw , which is not Popcorn-Time, is shut down.

Nothing to do with the app, which is the title of this wikipedia article.

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTimeApp/

This sentence should be removed - it is misleading and deceitful.

The article also mentions 'Website inactive' - this is confusing. This is an app, not a website.

If there is a website to be had, it would be https://github.com/popcorn-official

See: https://www.reddit.com/r/PopCornTimeApp/wiki/faq

70.53.105.154 (talk) 17:25, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That reddit link flat-out says the website is no longer active. I don't see the problem. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:11, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

"I don't see the problem." - the 'problem' is that popcorn time is not a website, it is an app. (Thus 'ENTIRELY FALSE AND MISLEADING')

70.48.193.133 (talk) 00:28, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a new version of the app, please add it to the page because I cant due to the page is "semi-protected". https://github.com/popcorn-official/popcorn-desktop/releases/tag/v0.4.7 192.89.123.43 (talk) 21:02, 27 May 2022 (UTC)