That makes it more significant (not merely symbolic) that GitHub chose to short-circuit its DMCA process to restore access and open themselves up to liability in this case.
That makes it more significant (not merely symbolic) that GitHub chose to short-circuit its DMCA process to restore access and open themselves up to liability in this case.
> The Electronic Frontier Foundation represents the current maintainers of the youtube-dl software utility, a free software project that uses GitHub as a home for development.
- §512(g)(3)(C): A 'statement under penalty of perjury' that the material was removed by mistake.
- §512(g)(3)(D): A statement 'consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located', and to 'accept service of process from the person who provided notification'.
These are also noted as requirements in GitHub's counter notice policy [1] numbers 4 and 5.
I think it's also telling that GitHub never referred to this letter anywhere as a 'counter notice', only mentioning it as 'new information' they received about the project.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...