9 ms·

Suggest you read about how the DMCA works: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy https://docs.github.com/en/fr

Suggest you read about how the DMCA works: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

dannyw 6y ago
First, thank you for coming here and responding. Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. DMCA takedowns are for taking down works you own the copyright to; not for enforcing any arbitrary aspect of legislation. It’s my understanding that service providers do not need to comply with illegal requests. For example, if I DMCA’d <an oil producer>’s repository on accused violations of environmental protection acts, I don’t think it would be taken down, would it? If GitHub was an independent company advocating for open source; would it have acted any different? Note: Microsoft is a member of the RIAA. Apple made waves and built lots of favour for resisting the FBI and challenging quasi-legal processes. They took risks and demonstrated their principles (Suing the FBI over a terrorist’s iPhone is unlikely to be the first recommendation from their legal counsel). This smells like a qausi-legal process, and it would look great for GitHub/Microsoft if you do.
- chews 6y ago
  "It’s my understand(sp) that service providers do not need to comply with illegal requests." winner winner chicken dinner.
  - jackhughman 6y ago
    But a takedown is required in the course of due process until some leaning can be established as to legality and validity of the request. It's really, really, really stupid, because it presumes guilt before innocence, standing in opposition to most general legal principles. If anything, Microsoft via Github would do well to assert itself by not conforming, forcing the court to examine the DMCA's legality and process.
    - CRConrad 6y ago
      > It's really, really, really stupid, because it presumes guilt before innocence, standing in opposition to most general legal principles. So shouldn't the next US-American recipient of one of these notices refuse to comply on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional?
      - sizt 6y ago
        Under the common law, actual possession is seen as prima facie evidence of ownership — i.e., possession creates a presumption of ownership, but that presumption is rebuttable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2006 begins a discussion of possession with: "That possession is nine-tenths of the law is a truism hardly bearing repetition. Statements to this effect have existed almost as long as the common law itself." Willcox v. Stroup, 467 F.3d 409, 412 (4th Cir. 2006). It doesn’t mean whoever possesses something is automatically the owner. It means that absent evidence of superior title, possession generally suffices to show ownership.
    - sam0x17 6y ago
      With Microsoft's resources they could easily ignore the DMCA takedown and battle it out in the courts. But Microsoft is a paying member of the RIAA soooooooo
      - zaarn 6y ago
        Why would Microsoft stand up to a DMCA takedown from any organization to a random github repo that they can't immediately tell is being wrongly taken down? Unless you pay GitHub the legal fees, no organization would lift a finger.
        sebow 6y ago
        Most people don't expect Github/Gitlab/Microsoft/etc. to stand up necessarily in courts against such takedowns.They would just like at least a notification or just an appeal process.(See the mechanism that Google has in place on Youtube) Frankly this youtube-dl scandal alongside many others(ad blockers, script blockers,etc) is just one of a lengthy series of events from the dinosaurs of the internet that battle for revenue that is immensely falling. This is mostly about money and nothing else. I would also like to say that i think 95%+ of the applications of DMCA are on content that is palpable and makes sense "of taking down", not some software or code that nobody really can have a monopoly on.They therefore applied this law not in the spirit it was intended to, but in some disregarding fashion of how internet software & communications work. By the same logic any tool that is used to download/stream internet content is vulnerable, and when you take a closer look that might actually include a lot of software if not the majority of all software.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder, like a lawyer, or ... the rights-enforcement association to which the copyright holder belongs. ETA: And yes, if you submitted a DMCA takedown which has any reasonable chance (from the recipient/provider's perspective) of being valid, it would get taken down. Otherwise, the provider takes on their customer's liability. Very few (and zero free) providers are willing to do so.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    >> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. > DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder I think it's clear that "RIAA is not the copyright holder" is shorthand for "no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder". Even if you don't accept that, you can easily deduce that no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder by looking at the immediately following claim, "there is no infringing material". Given that there is no infringing material, it can't really matter whose agent the RIAA purports to be.
    - CrazyStat 6y ago
      The youtube-dl DMCA notice does not allege copyright infringement (section 512 of the DMCA) but rather breaking DRM (section 1201 of the DMCA). Arguing that there is no [copyright-]infringing material is completely missing the point. The EFF has a write-up about it [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
      - thaumasiotes 6y ago
        I'm not disputing that. I'm saying jfrunyon's comment is stupid.
        deleted 6y ago
- avsteele 6y ago
  According to the EFF link below they don't need to be a holder. If the software is for breaking locks they can submit a take down notice under section 1201. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
  - marcan_42 6y ago
    It's a notice under the provisions of the DMCA, but it's not a "DMCA takedown". What we call DMCA takedowns, coloquially, with the whole counter notification process etc, are notices submitted under Title II. That title deals with copyright infringement, not anti-circumvention. That means treating such notices as a typical DMCA notice, as GitHub has done, is incorrect. GitHub may well choose to follow the takedown if it considers it valid and the repo infringing, but what they've done is treat it as a copyright takedown. And that is clearly, unambiguously wrong, as it goes against their own DMCA policy, linked from the youtube-dl repo's disabled notice, which says: > The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed. So yes, GitHub messed up here. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have taken down youtube-dl, but they way they went about doing it is wrong. You'll notice that the EFF, in that article, never goes into the details of the takedown process that happened. They never said what GitHub did was proper. They are just talking about the anti-circumvention law in general.
    - jfrunyon 6y ago
      The key here is that if they DIDN'T comply with it, the RIAA might sue them. Even if they were to win it (because a judge determines the takedown provisions don't cover it or for another reason), they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Moreover, without the Title II provisions, they would be liable for having distributed the circumvention in the past! On the other hand, if they DO comply with it, the RIAA is extremely unlikely to sue them, whether this is covered by the safe-harbor provisions of Title II or not.
      - 6y ago
- mytailorisrich 6y ago
  Complying with DMCA notices covers the rear-end of service providers. Therefore there is only risk and no benefit for a service provider not to comply with any notices they might receive.
- onion2k 6y ago
  What's the penalty for failing to comply with a takedown that does turn out to be legal? That's the risk that Github has to consider.
- ponker 6y ago
  Microsoft is an enterprise software company that suckles at the teat of government invoicing to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, they are nothing like Apple in this regard.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. Almost all of the lawyers at HN, and the lawyers at the EFF, and the guy at Popehat, are all generally in agreement that there was nothing wrong with what the RIAA or what GitHub did. It should tell you something when the people most in a position to evaluate the situation don't see anything amiss.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    Especially when almost all of those people are staunchly against the anti-circumvention provisions.
    - tankenmate 6y ago
      It would seem your issue is with the DMCA, if so then the way to fix it is to change the legislation; lobby the necessary politicians to get the law changed. If you object to people following the law because you feel they don't hold the same views on the matter at hand, the point is moot, unless of course you feel they should break the law. Which leads back to, if you don't like a law then lobby for it to be changed.
      - alien1993 6y ago
        Problem solved people.
      - xtian 6y ago
        Which laws have you gotten changed through lobbying?
        barkingcat 6y ago
        Isn't this exactly how laws are changed in the US? Lobbying has more to do with how the country works than voting.
        6y ago
- Cthulhu_ 6y ago
  If youtube-dl disagrees with the takedown, they need to take it up with the RIAA. If the RIAA - or a judge - decides in favor of youtube-dl, Github can restore the repository. This is how things work; it may not be how you'd like things to work, but I doubt you've ever been involved in any part of a DMCA takedown request (as the sender, receiver, or the person that had their stuff taken down).
  - ivanche 6y ago
    Textbook example of "guilty until proven innocent"...
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. That doesn't make the notice facially invalid, if they have made the required representations (which they have, as they have alleged specific infringement of their works on a contributory infringement theory as well as alleging that the works in question violated DMCA anticircumvention provisions, and particularly alleging that the combination of the anticircumvention violation plus the specific identification of works of RIAA-represented owners as targets was the basis for the contributory infringement claim.) Unless Github wants to expose itself to both upfront costs and potential liability by judging the details of the legal theories and fact claims in facially-valid DMCA takedown notices, it makes sense for them to react to facially-valid notices and wait for a facially-valid counter-notice before restoring user content.
- qw3rty01 6y ago
  (IANAL) It doesn't matter if people think RIAA's DMCA isn't legally valid (or even if it isn't actually valid), Github still has to follow section 512 of the DMCA as a service provider, and it's not their responsibility to determine validity of the claim. RIAA is a 3rd party authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, so they are allowed to send a DMCA takedown. Also the takedown is claiming DMCA section 1201, which is for bypassing DRM, not distributing infringing material. tl;dr there probably isn't anything inherently wrong with the RIAA's claim, and there's definitely nothing wrong with github's response. As for DMCAing an oil producer's repository for something unrelated to DMCA, github would still take it down, but it's quite likely that you'd end up with a lawsuit from the oil company for damages. As long as GitHub is run by a US company, it doesn't matter how advocating they are of open source, nothing would change...they'd still take down the repository after receiving a DMCA takedown request. And the last point, my understanding is apple wasn't actually required to assist the FBI, but american companies are required to follow DMCA.
skissane 6y ago
A question about your DMCA policy – the 10-14 day wait before you restore access in case of a DMCA counter-notice, is that mandated by the DMCA or is that just your own policy? It seems to me that this could be used to cause a lot of damage – target a popular open source project with a totally bogus DMCA notice, even if they instantly file a counternotice they still get made unavailable for 10+ days. (Also, why 10-14 days? Why not just 10 days or just 14 days?)
- anticensor 6y ago
  To allow for humans to process requests.
wolco2 6y ago
What section of this document were you following when you decided to take down a repo without any copyright infrigement?
- snazz 6y ago
  As far as I understand, the legal footing for the RIAA takedown request comes from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
  - hundchenkatze 6y ago
    Yep, but the article linked to by the ceo discusses section 501 which applies to copyright infringements. The riaa doesn't (that I'm aware of) have a copyright on anything in youtube-dl's repo.
1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago
"Suggest you read about how the DMCA works: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy" That's how section 512 works. The RIAA letter referenced section 1201, not 512. There is no copyright infringing material to identify. The letter relates to distribution of copyright protection circumvention technology. Maybe Github needs a new page explaining section 1201 takedowns. https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/1201_background_slides.pdf https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/1201_background_slides.pd...
- akersten 6y ago
  > section 1201 takedowns Does the DMCA actually define these, or is the entire concept of a "section 1201 takedown" a courtesy GitHub is extending to rightsholders, but not legally required to provide? I am only familiar with the DMCA outlining a takedown process for copyrighted content.
  - jackhughman 6y ago
    I have the way that the second amendment is weaponised, but just like gun manufacturers don't absorb liability for what is done with their weapons, the same could be said of the creation of software made available on GitHub.
- TheKarateKid 6y ago
  Even if it did circumvent copy protection (I don’t think it does?).. the code itself needs a user to execute it. Isn’t this how LAME was able to exist without violating mp3 patent laws?
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    That was their argument, but I strongly doubt it would have held up had they been sued (particularly in the US). Also, a major point they raised was that they did not distribute LAME in executable form.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
woofie11 6y ago
You break your own ToS and DMCA policies by banning users who repost youtube-dl code. You potentially also lose your safe harbor restrictions in the process. Let's pretend for the moment that the original youtube-dl DMCA had been valid, or that you removed youtube-dl due to an innocuous mistake. If I post youtube-dl to MY account, you have NO reason to take it down until you receive another takedown request from the RIAA for my repo. You certainly have no reason to ban users. There is nothing in your ToS which this violates. I work on education projects which use youtube-dl in legal, non-infringing ways. I don't think the RIAA has a legal leg to stand on for reasons I'm not going to get to in this post. Until github starts following DMCA processes properly, I CANNOT respond to the existing takedown request, since I have no standing. It's not my repo. The right course of action for me would be to: (1) Consult my lawyer and figure out if this is a fight I want to pick. I'm pretty sure I'd win in court if this went all the way, but I might go bankrupt first. (2) Post youtube-dl to my repo. (3) Wait for a DMCA takedown notice. (4) Respond to it with a counternotice, and litigate with the RIAA. Because github has decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of the RIAA, rather than a neutral third party, I cannot follow this process. github short-circuits this process at #2 by threatening to remove the repo and ban my account. I'm sorry that you've chosen to side with the RIAA against the Internet. I'm gradually moving my business to gitlab. This is approximately what people thought would happen as a result of the Microsoft purchase.
- kelnos 6y ago
  This whole thing makes me think of how Google goes "above and beyond" with Content ID on YouTube. Google had no legal obligation to build Content ID and preemptively take things down (and, as it turns out, way more aggressively than they legally need to be). In the same way, it seems GitHub is preemptively telling people that if they re-post youtube-dl on GH, they'll be banned, even though GH has no legal responsibility to do so. It's really sad that they're siding with big business in all this, rather than their users, without whom they'd be nothing.
  - TheKarateKid 6y ago
    YouTube had to make Content ID because they were facing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Viacom. Had YouTube not been proactive, the court could have ruled that YouTube was widely used for piracy, and they’d be liable. GitHub seems to be acting without a backbone. They’re owned by Microsoft, and can definitely stand up to legal challenges like this. Look at BitTorrent: The protocol and it’s code are legal despite being used for piracy. I don’t see why GitHub caves to every request to take down code that is clearly not violating any copyrighted material. Also, the code itself does not break any copy protection and even if it did.. the code itself needs a user to execute it. Isn’t this how LAME was able to exist without violating mp3 patent laws?
sperm 6y ago
With regard to YouTube-dl did you actually follow through on this step? > GitHub Asks User to Make Changes.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
3131s 6y ago
What a useless and smug response. You think people here don't know about the DMCA?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
Thorrez 6y ago
>Assuming the takedown notice is sufficiently detailed according to the statutory requirements (as explained in the how-to guide), we will post the notice to our public repository and pass the link along to the affected user. I think many would argue that the takedown notice wasn't "sufficiently detailed", especially when you consider the 1201 vs 512 issue.
ndesaulniers 6y ago
I highly suspect that most of the industry does little due diligence to vet DMCA takedown notices in favor of automation. Just curious, what would the effects be if one were to use multiple accounts to automate the submission of DMCA takedown notifications for all <content> hosted on <content provider>? Does <content provider> honor takedowns only from or in preference to blessed accounts? Could one DoS <content provider> in such a manner? If a human has to review all DMCA complaints, would a flood of false claims DoS the human reviewers? Asking for a friend. https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#before-you-start https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... mentions: > The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability — that is, you could get sued for money damages. The DMCA itself provides for damages against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing. That's interesting; is US copyright law enforceable everywhere?
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  Did you mean "is perjury enforceable everywhere"? I bet the US government could get you extradited for something or other, if not, if it really wanted to. But I don't think they'd have much trouble getting you extradited (or at least punished for your country's version of perjury) for violating a law which you explicitly agreed to abide by...
winkeltripel 6y ago
Nat, it wasn't even a DMCA claim. It was missing key components which distinguish a DMCA claim from a grumpy threatening letter. The only valid response was a blog post to shame the RIAA. Instead, shame has been brought upon github. Yall don't even read threatening letters before taking stuff offline? There is a way forward, Nat. You can reinstate that repo today, and tell the RIAA that they cannot use your online tool. They have to send your legal representation (in Alaska to slow it down) a certified, hand-signed letter through snail mail. Make a big public show of this process, and get public mindshare on your side.
exabrial 6y ago
In any case, thank you for responding directly.
bluntfang 6y ago
man a low effort post like this by a non-celebrity would be hidden real quick. (braces for being hidden for making a statement about the moderation)
fortran77 6y ago
Thanks, Nat, for standing up for the “know it all” trolls on Hacker News. For some reason, kids who can code think they’re legal experts, too. And they feel they don’t have to be polite.
scaramanga 6y ago
Sorry, Nat, but reading that is doing nothing much to restore the goodwill that has been eroded by this whole affair. The DMCA works in much the way that its authors, the telcos and the MPAA and RIAA intended it to. To indemnify ISP's in return for their becoming enforcers for rights-holders ridiculously over-broad "anti-circumvention" clauses[0] which lead to outrageous abuses of the law (including anti-trust violations, attacks on the rights of consumers, academics, etc). Now, Microsoft's lobbying machinery must have been in its infancy back then so the blame can't entirely be laid at their feet. But Microsoft don't seem to be doing anything to help either. Fundamental to the problem is that youtube-dl (and many others) seem to be obvious candidates for exceptions to DMCA 1201. But the process around those exceptions seems not be working at all. Something which Microsoft appears completely tone-deaf and oblivious to[1]. So, with respect, I suggest you... get a grip to how you guys are going to be being perceived in this situation. [0] Fritz Attaway, policy advisor MPAA. https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ [1] https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2015-0012-0054 https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2015-0012-0054
arein2 6y ago
From the DMCA page: >With potential damages multiplied across millions of users, cloud-computing and user-generated content sites like YouTube, Facebook, or GitHub probably never would have existed without the DMCA (or at least not without passing some of that cost downstream to their users). Talk about backwards logic

Suggest you read about how the DMCA works: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...

dannyw 6y ago

First, thank you for coming here and responding. Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. DMCA takedowns are for taking down works you own the copyright to; not for enforcing any arbitrary aspect of legislation. It’s my understanding that service providers do not need to comply with illegal requests. For example, if I DMCA’d <an oil producer>’s repository on accused violations of environmental protection acts, I don’t think it would be taken down, would it? If GitHub was an independent company advocating for open source; would it have acted any different? Note: Microsoft is a member of the RIAA. Apple made waves and built lots of favour for resisting the FBI and challenging quasi-legal processes. They took risks and demonstrated their principles (Suing the FBI over a terrorist’s iPhone is unlikely to be the first recommendation from their legal counsel). This smells like a qausi-legal process, and it would look great for GitHub/Microsoft if you do.

chews 6y ago
"It’s my understand(sp) that service providers do not need to comply with illegal requests." winner winner chicken dinner.
- jackhughman 6y ago
  But a takedown is required in the course of due process until some leaning can be established as to legality and validity of the request. It's really, really, really stupid, because it presumes guilt before innocence, standing in opposition to most general legal principles. If anything, Microsoft via Github would do well to assert itself by not conforming, forcing the court to examine the DMCA's legality and process.
  - CRConrad 6y ago
    > It's really, really, really stupid, because it presumes guilt before innocence, standing in opposition to most general legal principles. So shouldn't the next US-American recipient of one of these notices refuse to comply on the grounds that the law is unconstitutional?
    - sizt 6y ago
      Under the common law, actual possession is seen as prima facie evidence of ownership — i.e., possession creates a presumption of ownership, but that presumption is rebuttable. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in 2006 begins a discussion of possession with: "That possession is nine-tenths of the law is a truism hardly bearing repetition. Statements to this effect have existed almost as long as the common law itself." Willcox v. Stroup, 467 F.3d 409, 412 (4th Cir. 2006). It doesn’t mean whoever possesses something is automatically the owner. It means that absent evidence of superior title, possession generally suffices to show ownership.
  - sam0x17 6y ago
    With Microsoft's resources they could easily ignore the DMCA takedown and battle it out in the courts. But Microsoft is a paying member of the RIAA soooooooo
    - zaarn 6y ago
      Why would Microsoft stand up to a DMCA takedown from any organization to a random github repo that they can't immediately tell is being wrongly taken down? Unless you pay GitHub the legal fees, no organization would lift a finger.
      - sebow 6y ago
        Most people don't expect Github/Gitlab/Microsoft/etc. to stand up necessarily in courts against such takedowns.They would just like at least a notification or just an appeal process.(See the mechanism that Google has in place on Youtube) Frankly this youtube-dl scandal alongside many others(ad blockers, script blockers,etc) is just one of a lengthy series of events from the dinosaurs of the internet that battle for revenue that is immensely falling. This is mostly about money and nothing else. I would also like to say that i think 95%+ of the applications of DMCA are on content that is palpable and makes sense "of taking down", not some software or code that nobody really can have a monopoly on.They therefore applied this law not in the spirit it was intended to, but in some disregarding fashion of how internet software & communications work. By the same logic any tool that is used to download/stream internet content is vulnerable, and when you take a closer look that might actually include a lot of software if not the majority of all software.
jfrunyon 6y ago
DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder, like a lawyer, or ... the rights-enforcement association to which the copyright holder belongs. ETA: And yes, if you submitted a DMCA takedown which has any reasonable chance (from the recipient/provider's perspective) of being valid, it would get taken down. Otherwise, the provider takes on their customer's liability. Very few (and zero free) providers are willing to do so.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  >> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. > DMCA takedowns do not need to be from the copyright holder themselves. They can be from ANY authorized agent of the copyright holder I think it's clear that "RIAA is not the copyright holder" is shorthand for "no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder". Even if you don't accept that, you can easily deduce that no member of the RIAA is the copyright holder by looking at the immediately following claim, "there is no infringing material". Given that there is no infringing material, it can't really matter whose agent the RIAA purports to be.
  - CrazyStat 6y ago
    The youtube-dl DMCA notice does not allege copyright infringement (section 512 of the DMCA) but rather breaking DRM (section 1201 of the DMCA). Arguing that there is no [copyright-]infringing material is completely missing the point. The EFF has a write-up about it [1]. [1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
    - thaumasiotes 6y ago
      I'm not disputing that. I'm saying jfrunyon's comment is stupid.
      - deleted 6y ago
avsteele 6y ago
According to the EFF link below they don't need to be a holder. If the software is for breaking locks they can submit a take down notice under section 1201. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-takedown-isnt-just-problem-american-law https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2020/11/github-youtube-dl-take...
- marcan_42 6y ago
  It's a notice under the provisions of the DMCA, but it's not a "DMCA takedown". What we call DMCA takedowns, coloquially, with the whole counter notification process etc, are notices submitted under Title II. That title deals with copyright infringement, not anti-circumvention. That means treating such notices as a typical DMCA notice, as GitHub has done, is incorrect. GitHub may well choose to follow the takedown if it considers it valid and the repo infringing, but what they've done is treat it as a copyright takedown. And that is clearly, unambiguously wrong, as it goes against their own DMCA policy, linked from the youtube-dl repo's disabled notice, which says: > The DMCA notice and takedown process should be used only for complaints about copyright infringement. Notices sent through our DMCA process must identify copyrighted work or works that are allegedly being infringed. So yes, GitHub messed up here. That doesn't mean they shouldn't have taken down youtube-dl, but they way they went about doing it is wrong. You'll notice that the EFF, in that article, never goes into the details of the takedown process that happened. They never said what GitHub did was proper. They are just talking about the anti-circumvention law in general.
  - jfrunyon 6y ago
    The key here is that if they DIDN'T comply with it, the RIAA might sue them. Even if they were to win it (because a judge determines the takedown provisions don't cover it or for another reason), they'd be in for a costly legal battle. Moreover, without the Title II provisions, they would be liable for having distributed the circumvention in the past! On the other hand, if they DO comply with it, the RIAA is extremely unlikely to sue them, whether this is covered by the safe-harbor provisions of Title II or not.
    - 6y ago
mytailorisrich 6y ago
Complying with DMCA notices covers the rear-end of service providers. Therefore there is only risk and no benefit for a service provider not to comply with any notices they might receive.
onion2k 6y ago
What's the penalty for failing to comply with a takedown that does turn out to be legal? That's the risk that Github has to consider.
ponker 6y ago
Microsoft is an enterprise software company that suckles at the teat of government invoicing to the tune of tens of billions of dollars, they are nothing like Apple in this regard.
gamblor956 6y ago
Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. Almost all of the lawyers at HN, and the lawyers at the EFF, and the guy at Popehat, are all generally in agreement that there was nothing wrong with what the RIAA or what GitHub did. It should tell you something when the people most in a position to evaluate the situation don't see anything amiss.
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  Especially when almost all of those people are staunchly against the anti-circumvention provisions.
  - tankenmate 6y ago
    It would seem your issue is with the DMCA, if so then the way to fix it is to change the legislation; lobby the necessary politicians to get the law changed. If you object to people following the law because you feel they don't hold the same views on the matter at hand, the point is moot, unless of course you feel they should break the law. Which leads back to, if you don't like a law then lobby for it to be changed.
    - alien1993 6y ago
      Problem solved people.
    - xtian 6y ago
      Which laws have you gotten changed through lobbying?
      - barkingcat 6y ago
        Isn't this exactly how laws are changed in the US? Lobbying has more to do with how the country works than voting.
        6y ago
Cthulhu_ 6y ago
If youtube-dl disagrees with the takedown, they need to take it up with the RIAA. If the RIAA - or a judge - decides in favor of youtube-dl, Github can restore the repository. This is how things work; it may not be how you'd like things to work, but I doubt you've ever been involved in any part of a DMCA takedown request (as the sender, receiver, or the person that had their stuff taken down).
- ivanche 6y ago
  Textbook example of "guilty until proven innocent"...
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Some people think RIAA’s DMCA notice is not legally valid, arguing RIAA is not the copyright holder and there is no infringing material. That doesn't make the notice facially invalid, if they have made the required representations (which they have, as they have alleged specific infringement of their works on a contributory infringement theory as well as alleging that the works in question violated DMCA anticircumvention provisions, and particularly alleging that the combination of the anticircumvention violation plus the specific identification of works of RIAA-represented owners as targets was the basis for the contributory infringement claim.) Unless Github wants to expose itself to both upfront costs and potential liability by judging the details of the legal theories and fact claims in facially-valid DMCA takedown notices, it makes sense for them to react to facially-valid notices and wait for a facially-valid counter-notice before restoring user content.
qw3rty01 6y ago
(IANAL) It doesn't matter if people think RIAA's DMCA isn't legally valid (or even if it isn't actually valid), Github still has to follow section 512 of the DMCA as a service provider, and it's not their responsibility to determine validity of the claim. RIAA is a 3rd party authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder, so they are allowed to send a DMCA takedown. Also the takedown is claiming DMCA section 1201, which is for bypassing DRM, not distributing infringing material. tl;dr there probably isn't anything inherently wrong with the RIAA's claim, and there's definitely nothing wrong with github's response. As for DMCAing an oil producer's repository for something unrelated to DMCA, github would still take it down, but it's quite likely that you'd end up with a lawsuit from the oil company for damages. As long as GitHub is run by a US company, it doesn't matter how advocating they are of open source, nothing would change...they'd still take down the repository after receiving a DMCA takedown request. And the last point, my understanding is apple wasn't actually required to assist the FBI, but american companies are required to follow DMCA.

skissane 6y ago

A question about your DMCA policy – the 10-14 day wait before you restore access in case of a DMCA counter-notice, is that mandated by the DMCA or is that just your own policy? It seems to me that this could be used to cause a lot of damage – target a popular open source project with a totally bogus DMCA notice, even if they instantly file a counternotice they still get made unavailable for 10+ days. (Also, why 10-14 days? Why not just 10 days or just 14 days?)

anticensor 6y ago
To allow for humans to process requests.

wolco2 6y ago

What section of this document were you following when you decided to take down a repo without any copyright infrigement?

snazz 6y ago
As far as I understand, the legal footing for the RIAA takedown request comes from here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
- hundchenkatze 6y ago
  Yep, but the article linked to by the ceo discusses section 501 which applies to copyright infringements. The riaa doesn't (that I'm aware of) have a copyright on anything in youtube-dl's repo.

1vuio0pswjnm7 6y ago

"Suggest you read about how the DMCA works: https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-policy" That's how section 512 works. The RIAA letter referenced section 1201, not 512. There is no copyright infringing material to identify. The letter relates to distribution of copyright protection circumvention technology. Maybe Github needs a new page explaining section 1201 takedowns. https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/1201_background_slides.pdf https://cdn.loc.gov/copyright/1201/1201_background_slides.pd...

akersten 6y ago
> section 1201 takedowns Does the DMCA actually define these, or is the entire concept of a "section 1201 takedown" a courtesy GitHub is extending to rightsholders, but not legally required to provide? I am only familiar with the DMCA outlining a takedown process for copyrighted content.
- jackhughman 6y ago
  I have the way that the second amendment is weaponised, but just like gun manufacturers don't absorb liability for what is done with their weapons, the same could be said of the creation of software made available on GitHub.
TheKarateKid 6y ago
Even if it did circumvent copy protection (I don’t think it does?).. the code itself needs a user to execute it. Isn’t this how LAME was able to exist without violating mp3 patent laws?
- jfrunyon 6y ago
  That was their argument, but I strongly doubt it would have held up had they been sued (particularly in the US). Also, a major point they raised was that they did not distribute LAME in executable form.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

woofie11 6y ago

You break your own ToS and DMCA policies by banning users who repost youtube-dl code. You potentially also lose your safe harbor restrictions in the process. Let's pretend for the moment that the original youtube-dl DMCA had been valid, or that you removed youtube-dl due to an innocuous mistake. If I post youtube-dl to MY account, you have NO reason to take it down until you receive another takedown request from the RIAA for my repo. You certainly have no reason to ban users. There is nothing in your ToS which this violates. I work on education projects which use youtube-dl in legal, non-infringing ways. I don't think the RIAA has a legal leg to stand on for reasons I'm not going to get to in this post. Until github starts following DMCA processes properly, I CANNOT respond to the existing takedown request, since I have no standing. It's not my repo. The right course of action for me would be to: (1) Consult my lawyer and figure out if this is a fight I want to pick. I'm pretty sure I'd win in court if this went all the way, but I might go bankrupt first. (2) Post youtube-dl to my repo. (3) Wait for a DMCA takedown notice. (4) Respond to it with a counternotice, and litigate with the RIAA. Because github has decided to act as an arbiter on behalf of the RIAA, rather than a neutral third party, I cannot follow this process. github short-circuits this process at #2 by threatening to remove the repo and ban my account. I'm sorry that you've chosen to side with the RIAA against the Internet. I'm gradually moving my business to gitlab. This is approximately what people thought would happen as a result of the Microsoft purchase.

kelnos 6y ago
This whole thing makes me think of how Google goes "above and beyond" with Content ID on YouTube. Google had no legal obligation to build Content ID and preemptively take things down (and, as it turns out, way more aggressively than they legally need to be). In the same way, it seems GitHub is preemptively telling people that if they re-post youtube-dl on GH, they'll be banned, even though GH has no legal responsibility to do so. It's really sad that they're siding with big business in all this, rather than their users, without whom they'd be nothing.
- TheKarateKid 6y ago
  YouTube had to make Content ID because they were facing a multi-billion dollar lawsuit from Viacom. Had YouTube not been proactive, the court could have ruled that YouTube was widely used for piracy, and they’d be liable. GitHub seems to be acting without a backbone. They’re owned by Microsoft, and can definitely stand up to legal challenges like this. Look at BitTorrent: The protocol and it’s code are legal despite being used for piracy. I don’t see why GitHub caves to every request to take down code that is clearly not violating any copyrighted material. Also, the code itself does not break any copy protection and even if it did.. the code itself needs a user to execute it. Isn’t this how LAME was able to exist without violating mp3 patent laws?

sperm 6y ago

With regard to YouTube-dl did you actually follow through on this step? > GitHub Asks User to Make Changes.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

3131s 6y ago

What a useless and smug response. You think people here don't know about the DMCA?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

Thorrez 6y ago

>Assuming the takedown notice is sufficiently detailed according to the statutory requirements (as explained in the how-to guide), we will post the notice to our public repository and pass the link along to the affected user. I think many would argue that the takedown notice wasn't "sufficiently detailed", especially when you consider the 1201 vs 512 issue.

ndesaulniers 6y ago

I highly suspect that most of the industry does little due diligence to vet DMCA takedown notices in favor of automation. Just curious, what would the effects be if one were to use multiple accounts to automate the submission of DMCA takedown notifications for all <content> hosted on <content provider>? Does <content provider> honor takedowns only from or in preference to blessed accounts? Could one DoS <content provider> in such a manner? If a human has to review all DMCA complaints, would a flood of false claims DoS the human reviewers? Asking for a friend. https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#before-you-start https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... mentions: > The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability — that is, you could get sued for money damages. The DMCA itself provides for damages against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing. That's interesting; is US copyright law enforceable everywhere?

jfrunyon 6y ago
Did you mean "is perjury enforceable everywhere"? I bet the US government could get you extradited for something or other, if not, if it really wanted to. But I don't think they'd have much trouble getting you extradited (or at least punished for your country's version of perjury) for violating a law which you explicitly agreed to abide by...

winkeltripel 6y ago

Nat, it wasn't even a DMCA claim. It was missing key components which distinguish a DMCA claim from a grumpy threatening letter. The only valid response was a blog post to shame the RIAA. Instead, shame has been brought upon github. Yall don't even read threatening letters before taking stuff offline? There is a way forward, Nat. You can reinstate that repo today, and tell the RIAA that they cannot use your online tool. They have to send your legal representation (in Alaska to slow it down) a certified, hand-signed letter through snail mail. Make a big public show of this process, and get public mindshare on your side.

exabrial 6y ago

In any case, thank you for responding directly.

bluntfang 6y ago

man a low effort post like this by a non-celebrity would be hidden real quick. (braces for being hidden for making a statement about the moderation)

fortran77 6y ago

Thanks, Nat, for standing up for the “know it all” trolls on Hacker News. For some reason, kids who can code think they’re legal experts, too. And they feel they don’t have to be polite.

scaramanga 6y ago

Sorry, Nat, but reading that is doing nothing much to restore the goodwill that has been eroded by this whole affair. The DMCA works in much the way that its authors, the telcos and the MPAA and RIAA intended it to. To indemnify ISP's in return for their becoming enforcers for rights-holders ridiculously over-broad "anti-circumvention" clauses[0] which lead to outrageous abuses of the law (including anti-trust violations, attacks on the rights of consumers, academics, etc). Now, Microsoft's lobbying machinery must have been in its infancy back then so the blame can't entirely be laid at their feet. But Microsoft don't seem to be doing anything to help either. Fundamental to the problem is that youtube-dl (and many others) seem to be obvious candidates for exceptions to DMCA 1201. But the process around those exceptions seems not be working at all. Something which Microsoft appears completely tone-deaf and oblivious to[1]. So, with respect, I suggest you... get a grip to how you guys are going to be being perceived in this situation. [0] Fritz Attaway, policy advisor MPAA. https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ https://www.wired.com/2008/10/ten-years-later/ [1] https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2015-0012-0054 https://beta.regulations.gov/document/COLC-2015-0012-0054

arein2 6y ago

From the DMCA page: >With potential damages multiplied across millions of users, cloud-computing and user-generated content sites like YouTube, Facebook, or GitHub probably never would have existed without the DMCA (or at least not without passing some of that cost downstream to their users). Talk about backwards logic