4 ms·

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,

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.

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.