Hacker News Reader

It's interesting how many Github counternotices (e.g., [1] [2]) seem completely justified yet link to repositories that are no longer on GitHub. I wonder what happened.

[1] in https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0... someone forked a permissively-licensed project; the original author made the project-closed source, then issued a DMCA takedown against the fork. That's clearly bogus: you can't revoke an open source license.

[2] in https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2019/11/2019-11-2... Microsoft DMCAd a project that did something with Windows local licensing keys. I can see how Microsoft would prefer that this project not exist, but I see no infringement. Not everything that a big company dislikes is an infringement of copyright.

Jetbrains is also constantly taking down cracks/piracy license servers/etc - see [0,1,2].

0: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/10/2020-10-0...

1: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/01/2020-01-1...

2: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2019/09/2019-09-0...

WTF this isn't copyright infringement. This is breach of TOS, technically. They have no grounds to use DMCA takedowns for this.

How in the world is Github allowing this?

DMCA doesn’t give the service provider much room to adjudicate these claims. The intended way to correct bogus DMCA notices is a counter notice. GitHub’s particular policy says they reinstate content 10-14 days after getting a counter notice, unless the claimant gets a restraining order: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

DMCA! jazz hands

Github basically has no choice here, they must take it down immediately and then they or the creator has to fight to get it back up.

The law is set up for DOS attacks.

One of the earlier worries about the DMCA takedown process was that it would be used fraudulently to take down important things right before an election, or during a breaking news window to bury a story. I wonder if anyone has tried that yet.

Pity. I really liked rubymine, and while I used it legally, I really dislike abusing the DMCA like that. Time to search for an alternative.

Those repos have a 404 response, which means the user decided to delete it themselves for whatever reason. Repos taken down from DMCA return 451 (unavailable for legal reasons).

I just used windows-g to record upside down music video. Seems to work fine. mp4 file is in my captures video. Sound is great. How is that acceptable and this isn't?

btw, Popcorn time is a bit different situation. I would say bit torrent is more the problem, or at least the people who upload pirated content.

What is odd though is that it's the RIAA filing suit here and not google. Google has a real complaint, RIAA certainly does not.

It would be like if NYT went after a web client for saving news articles for offline reading.

Bizarre.

Can you use the DMCA for a TOS breech? It's not obvious to me that Google would have a claim.

TOS don't really have any legal power, and you don't even have to accept TOS to use youtube-dl, so I guess the worst they could do would be to deny you service.

What’s the difference? The main one I can see is that the RIAA is accusing ytdl of being a DRM circumvention tool while Popcorn Time is just a straightforward P2P infringement tool. That doesn’t make the DMCA notice any more valid.

I guess I’m nitpicking but it’s important that they’re not “filing suit”, possibly because they don’t care enough or don’t think they have a case. DMCA takedown is a sort of dispute resolution process mandated by law, it’s not a substitute for an actual lawsuit.

> How is that acceptable and this isn't?

Because Microsoft can afford lawyers to fight this, and random GitHub projects can't. It's an intimidation tactic.

It's copyright terrorism.

The aim is fear.

> What is odd though is that it's the RIAA filing suit here and not google. Google has a real complaint, RIAA certainly does not.

Probably not wanting to poke a hornets nest of the open source community.

All this misuse of technology is going to bring back the kinescope.

Well I for one hope you are correct. The fact that popcorn time is still up gives me hope that ytdl will also return soon.

Is there any chance that someone could sue them for filing illegitimate claims?

Yes, but it is more difficult than just spamming DMCA takedown requests. I was told I need to prove "tortuous business interference".

Tortious Interference with Contract

To prove tortious interference with a contract, a plaintiff must establish several elements, including that The defendant’s conduct led to a breach of the contract; and The plaintiff suffered damage as a result.

The question would be whether Github users suffered a breach of contract for having any of our repos potentially shut down for a reason that involves a third party's claims of violation of DMCA.

As I recall, there was also an element where the DMCA claimant was protected if they could reasonably believe within good faith that their takedown was valid.

There's also unseen elements at play. If you're publishing semi-anonymously, the counter-claim process can deanonymize you.

Republishing the same content at a slightly different URL is the obvious, cheapest solution.

Very few people have been able to claim damages from false DMCA takedowns, although the DMCA specifically allows for it.

They probably can't go after Github because part of the purpose of DMCA takedowns is that companies which honor takedowns avoid liability for copyright infringement.