5 ms·

> 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Not according to this: Moreover, the Project in questi

> 1) The DMCA takedown process only applies to direct copyright violations, not to circumvention tools. Not according to this: Moreover, the Project in question hosts software that is distributed and used to infringe on the MPA Member Studios’ copyrights. See Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios, Inc. v. Grokster Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 940 n.13 (2005) (“the distribution of a product can itself give rise to liability where evidence shows that the distributor intended and encouraged the product to be used to infringe”). Hence, my point that it's an argument for the courts.

zaroth 7y ago
I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. There is perhaps no argument that PopcornTime is committing contributory copyright infringement. The point is you can’t use DMCA Takedown Notices on the source code of a contributory tool. The form that must be completed as part of a takedown notice does not have a box for “this is a tool which contributes to infringing my copyright”. The box you must check is “this is my copyrighted work and I don’t want it posted at this address”.
- naikrovek 7y ago
  > I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. I'm 100% sure that you are guessing, and that the post you replied to is directly quoting the takedown notice. See: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0...
  - resfirestar 7y ago
    This seems irrelevant as the person you are replying to is claiming that the notice is by its nature invalid. Quoting the notice they claim is invalid does nothing to prove them wrong. Addressing the content of the quote more directly, Grokster established that companies marketing file sharing applications have liability for infringement conducted by users. It did not establish that the companies' service providers can be sent DMCA notices, as that wasn't at issue. So that particular case doesn't help your point.
    - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
      I think the problem here is that the people arguing have two opposing philosophies of the law - the first is arguing the letter of the law makes the law, and that as this situation does not conform to the letter then the notice is invalid. the second is arguing that, in the American system, it is actually the interpretation that makes the law, hence it will have to be determined by the courts whether the notice is actually invalid. This second argument implies some things: Until such a time as the notice can be voided it is valid, because a valid notice is one that can shut something down as this one has done. There is no such thing as invalidity without court interpretation if you can send a notice and have it always treated as valid until the interpretation is made. The notice is in force, and there is nothing more valid than force in the American system. Perhaps in any real world system. I might like to live in a world in which argument number 1 was correct, but I'm pretty sure I live in a world which argument number two more closely models. I also think the courts will in the end interpret #2 as correct, for the reasons that #1 outlined, that the sending of the notice is a crime that the rich are allowed to commit on the poor. I think in the end both posters and myself share an equal cynicism about American Law, but display our cynicism in different ways.
      - wtallis 7y ago
        If the "valid until ruled otherwise" interpretation was correct, then why does the law have provisions that clearly anticipate that service providers may choose to decide for themselves that a purported DMCA takedown notice they have received is invalid? Those provisions offer significant protections to service providers, so the law seems to encourage rather than discourage providers to ignore deficient takedown notices based on their own judgement of how the notice measures up to the statutory requirements. Plus, GitHub apparently rejected the first version of this notice that was sent back in March, and only acted upon this amended version. So they clearly feel that it is within their power to decide what is or isn't a valid notice without needing a court to rule on the matter to make it certain and official.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
- balls187 7y ago
  I pulled that from the take down notice that was posted publicly on Github. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0... My interpretation was whomever filed the takedown notice contemplated your argument and proactively stated (paraphrased) "Based on case law, you can be held liable simply by distributing a product, if that product is clearly used to violate copyright law". The notice also referenced Githubs terms of service which prohibit using a github repos for copyright infringement. Is hosting a source code repo "distribution" of a product? Did whomever filed the DMCA, not have a valid basis for doing so (the argument in this thread)? By showing thumbnails of pirated movies a copyright violation? By loading content from "pirated sites" facilitate copyright violations? My pov is the answers to those questions are not simple, and thus would need legal clarification. In the interim, Github seems to be picking a side of minimizing liability.
  - derefr 7y ago
    The point the person arguing with you is making, is that you'd actually have to sue for this kind of infringement, not use a DMCA takedown notice for it. The suit would like be valid! But that doesn't mean that a DMCA takedown notice upon the same 'premise' is valid. DMCA takedown notices are a sort of pre-trial motion, used only for a very specific "obvious" kind of infringement, to take it down in advance of suit. For everything else, you have to actually sue—and actually win—in order to get something taken down. As well, DMCA takedown notices are only supposed to act to take down the relevant content, in the case where the recipient of the notice (i.e. the user of the hosting provider) doesn't respond/contest the notice. The spirit of this is that the takedown notice is only supposed to apply where there is no doubt, no argument, around the copyright-infringing status of the work. If anyone has doubts—the user receiving the claim, the hosting provider themselves, etc.—then legal due process is required, rather than summary judgement.
    - balls187 7y ago
      How is a DMCA takedown notice fundamentally different than a Cease and Desist letter? Are companies required to adhere to a DMCA notice, or is that just policy to avoid litigation? PDF Source on Safe Harbor provisions for OSP's: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwjS8Mr9h5zpAhXTOn0KHTskBrMQFjANegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fenwick.com%2FFenwickDocuments%2FDMCA-QA.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1S9UePXypL-wHLKjAZR5KA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...

zaroth 7y ago

I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. There is perhaps no argument that PopcornTime is committing contributory copyright infringement. The point is you can’t use DMCA Takedown Notices on the source code of a contributory tool. The form that must be completed as part of a takedown notice does not have a box for “this is a tool which contributes to infringing my copyright”. The box you must check is “this is my copyrighted work and I don’t want it posted at this address”.

naikrovek 7y ago
> I’m pretty sure what you are quoting is something else entirely, not a DMCA Takedown Notice. I'm 100% sure that you are guessing, and that the post you replied to is directly quoting the takedown notice. See: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0...
- resfirestar 7y ago
  This seems irrelevant as the person you are replying to is claiming that the notice is by its nature invalid. Quoting the notice they claim is invalid does nothing to prove them wrong. Addressing the content of the quote more directly, Grokster established that companies marketing file sharing applications have liability for infringement conducted by users. It did not establish that the companies' service providers can be sent DMCA notices, as that wasn't at issue. So that particular case doesn't help your point.
  - bryanrasmussen 7y ago
    I think the problem here is that the people arguing have two opposing philosophies of the law - the first is arguing the letter of the law makes the law, and that as this situation does not conform to the letter then the notice is invalid. the second is arguing that, in the American system, it is actually the interpretation that makes the law, hence it will have to be determined by the courts whether the notice is actually invalid. This second argument implies some things: Until such a time as the notice can be voided it is valid, because a valid notice is one that can shut something down as this one has done. There is no such thing as invalidity without court interpretation if you can send a notice and have it always treated as valid until the interpretation is made. The notice is in force, and there is nothing more valid than force in the American system. Perhaps in any real world system. I might like to live in a world in which argument number 1 was correct, but I'm pretty sure I live in a world which argument number two more closely models. I also think the courts will in the end interpret #2 as correct, for the reasons that #1 outlined, that the sending of the notice is a crime that the rich are allowed to commit on the poor. I think in the end both posters and myself share an equal cynicism about American Law, but display our cynicism in different ways.
    - wtallis 7y ago
      If the "valid until ruled otherwise" interpretation was correct, then why does the law have provisions that clearly anticipate that service providers may choose to decide for themselves that a purported DMCA takedown notice they have received is invalid? Those provisions offer significant protections to service providers, so the law seems to encourage rather than discourage providers to ignore deficient takedown notices based on their own judgement of how the notice measures up to the statutory requirements. Plus, GitHub apparently rejected the first version of this notice that was sent back in March, and only acted upon this amended version. So they clearly feel that it is within their power to decide what is or isn't a valid notice without needing a court to rule on the matter to make it certain and official.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
balls187 7y ago
I pulled that from the take down notice that was posted publicly on Github. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-01-MPA.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-0... My interpretation was whomever filed the takedown notice contemplated your argument and proactively stated (paraphrased) "Based on case law, you can be held liable simply by distributing a product, if that product is clearly used to violate copyright law". The notice also referenced Githubs terms of service which prohibit using a github repos for copyright infringement. Is hosting a source code repo "distribution" of a product? Did whomever filed the DMCA, not have a valid basis for doing so (the argument in this thread)? By showing thumbnails of pirated movies a copyright violation? By loading content from "pirated sites" facilitate copyright violations? My pov is the answers to those questions are not simple, and thus would need legal clarification. In the interim, Github seems to be picking a side of minimizing liability.
- derefr 7y ago
  The point the person arguing with you is making, is that you'd actually have to sue for this kind of infringement, not use a DMCA takedown notice for it. The suit would like be valid! But that doesn't mean that a DMCA takedown notice upon the same 'premise' is valid. DMCA takedown notices are a sort of pre-trial motion, used only for a very specific "obvious" kind of infringement, to take it down in advance of suit. For everything else, you have to actually sue—and actually win—in order to get something taken down. As well, DMCA takedown notices are only supposed to act to take down the relevant content, in the case where the recipient of the notice (i.e. the user of the hosting provider) doesn't respond/contest the notice. The spirit of this is that the takedown notice is only supposed to apply where there is no doubt, no argument, around the copyright-infringing status of the work. If anyone has doubts—the user receiving the claim, the hosting provider themselves, etc.—then legal due process is required, rather than summary judgement.
  - balls187 7y ago
    How is a DMCA takedown notice fundamentally different than a Cease and Desist letter? Are companies required to adhere to a DMCA notice, or is that just policy to avoid litigation? PDF Source on Safe Harbor provisions for OSP's: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=14&ved=2ahUKEwjS8Mr9h5zpAhXTOn0KHTskBrMQFjANegQIARAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.fenwick.com%2FFenwickDocuments%2FDMCA-QA.pdf&usg=AOvVaw1S9UePXypL-wHLKjAZR5KA https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...