6 ms·
Since there's a counter notice, I guess Github will put it back up now? That's the normal DMCA process I think?
by 6nf 6y ago
Since there's a counter notice, I guess Github will put it back up now? That's the normal DMCA process I think?
- CKN23-ARIN 6y agoYes, but the DMCA requires them to wait at least 10 business days first. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#g_2_C https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#g_2_C
- Aeolun 6y agoWtf? That’s insane. I can just randomly DDOS projects by submitting DMCA notices? Edit: Just realized there’s nothing distributed about it.
- CKN23-ARIN 6y agoFalse DMCA notices are, in theory, perjury, but in practice, yes.
- redwall_hp 6y agoHave we ever seen a media company prosecuted for perjury, despite copious evidence that they constantly misuse DMCA takedowns to do exactly that?
- monocasa 6y agoNope.
- sneak 6y agoNot once, no.
- downerending 6y agoNot sure anyone ever gets prosecuted for perjury. It's the norm in divorce cases, for example.
- saagarjha 6y agoWell there was the contempt of court and all with Bill Clinton…
- monocasa 6y agoAnd the amount of times I've seen a cop perjure themselves is unreal. We know that our former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper perjured himself before congress with impunity as well. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clappers-perjury-dc-made-men-dont-get-charged-lying-congress-jonathan-turley-column/1045991001/ https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap...
- downerending 6y agoProbably shouldn't drip gasoline on this smoldering dumpster fire, but pretty much anyone at a high political level that testifies "I can't remember" is probably committing perjury, yes. Oh well. https://www.newsweek.com/ken-starr-says-he-almost-charged-hillary-clinton-perjury-1117125 https://www.newsweek.com/ken-starr-says-he-almost-charged-hi...
- nullc 6y agoI received bogus DMCA complaints (over Big Buck Bunny, lol, multiple times), and Google stonewalled me when I tried to find out the identity of the complainant so that I could litigate against them. I expect situations like that contribute to the lack of response, along with the fact that providers often ignore DMCA complaints or put things back up without following the statutory takedown period.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> Google stonewalled me when I tried to find out the identity of the complainant so that I could litigate against them Playing devil's advocate, that information may have been protected by NDA. In that case, you'd have to sue Google to divulge the complainant.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 6y agoDMCA or Google's/YouTube's internal copyright dispute resolution process?
- nullc 6y agoGoogle's form letter claimed it was a DMCA complaint, but it might have been confused.
- colejohnson66 6y agoWhy do people say never? It has happened, albeit extremely rarely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_Act#Automattic,_Inc._and_Oliver_Hotham_v._Nick_Steiner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A...
- sneak 6y agoYou seem to be conflating a civil countersuit and a criminal prosecution for the crime of perjury.
- Dylan16807 6y agoNegligence is not against the DMCA rules, and they can always claim they were being negligent, so no.
- lostcolony 6y agoOut of touch politicians coming up with tech policy in the 90s. Tada!
- ocdtrekkie 6y agoPresumably, you'd have to succeed in that notice leading to a takedown. The 10 day waiting period only presumably kicked in when GitHub decided the DMCA was valid and actionable.
- URSpider94 6y agoNo, Github has no discretion in this process. Their only job is to follow the policy to the letter: provide the notice to the presumed offender and disable content, then forward the counter-notice to the original complainant and re-enable the content in 10 days.
- KenoFischer 6y agoGitHub can decide a takedown notice is facially invalid. Of course if it's later found that they're wrong by a court of competent jurisdiction, they'd be in trouble, so they're likely to be extremely conservative in making this determination.
- URSpider94 6y agoI'm curious to know whether platforms ever even bother to evaluate takedowns, beyond the most basic fact-checking (e.g. the item to be taken down is spelled properly). It seems like one of those cases where the risk of getting it wrong outweighs the benefit of trying to discriminate between good and bad requests.
- colejohnson66 6y agoDoesn’t Google deny DMCA requests sometimes?
- duskwuff 6y agoSometimes. Not as often as they should, but they will at least reject keyword-based delisting requests for obviously innocent web properties like Wikipedia or IMDB (typically because they have an page about the movie that some overzealous "copyright defense" outfit is trying to protect).
- khun533 6y agoThis is why you should never host your open source project on a US server. You're one DMCA notice away from being destroyed, needing a lawyer to counter claim properly, etc. This is insanity. Git hosted in Europe: https://codeberg.org/ https://codeberg.org/ Anyone know other git hosts outside the US? pls reply
- lazyjones 6y agoPerhaps you're right, but perhaps DMCA takedowns are a preferred alternative to what the MPAA does in other situations, like the Kim Dotcom raid in NZ.
- crankylinuxuser 6y agoOther areas that could be used would be like Tor and IPFS. Tor is anti-censorship but can be a SPOF. IPFS provides full identity of machine to the network (internal and external IPs), but is highly redundant and resistant to single attacks. And IPFS refuses to mainline work for Tor/I2P... So it still spits out every adapter to the world. Yes, even your internal non-routable addresses.
- i_d_rather_read 6y ago> This is why you should never host your open source project on a US server. You're one DMCA notice away from being destroyed, needing a lawyer to counter claim properly, etc. This is an excellent takeaway that should be upvoted.
- kevingadd 6y agoYes, you can, and there's nothing the victim can do about it. Many service providers won't even give you the details of the person who submitted the notice so you can sue them (Google, for example).
- nullc 6y agoRequire isn't exactly the right word. If they don't they lose the DMCA safe harbor. If it's really obviously not an infringement there isn't much harm in that. This is the reason that you can't use weak (or even unambiguous!) copyright infringement to take down popular sites-- their hosts will just forego the safe harbor, perhaps in exchange for indemnification. Private parties? No such luck.
- ben509 6y agoNo, the MPAA is going to sue them now. To file a counter notice, they must have a "good faith" reason for their dispute. The MPAA's claim is that Popcorn is used for piracy. IANAL and don't know the case law, so I don't know if it has merit. But a "good faith" dispute has to address the claim. Their dispute is arguing that they own the code. The MPAA never claimed they don't, that's simply not responding to the substance of their argument. They should really get an attorney. FFS, at least read the counter notice guidelines; I think they believe they're dealing with Github customer support.
- gpm 6y agoThey have a good faith reason for the counter notice, DMCA notices don't cover contributory copyright infringement. The MPAA committed perjury by submitting this notice. The MPAA still might still sue them though, DMCA notices don't cover it but copyright law does. IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah,
- loeg 6y agoYou're confusing the broader DMCA law and DMCA copyright violation takedown notices specifically. The DMCA copyright takedown notice is to assert to a common provider (Github) that your copyrighted work is currently copied on their platform (Github). As a result, the platform is obliged to immediately assume guilt on the part of their user and take down the content, regardless of evidence. There was no MPA-owned copyrighted material in the repository the DMCA takedown notice was invoked on. The popcorn developers own the copyright to their code, and no MPA media assets are in the Github repository. The MPA has no copyright claim against the source code on Github. The MPA could sue the developers for any reason they like, but that is a very different process from DMCA takedown notices. This was an abuse of the DMCA takedown process and the counternotice is wholly correct.
- ben509 6y agoI'm not confusing it, perhaps MPAA is. And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law. But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.