5 ms·

I don't believe that Github actually needed the EFF's writing for this, or that they don't have the necessary technical expertise themselves. That is probably r

by Rochus 6y ago

I don't believe that Github actually needed the EFF's writing for this, or that they don't have the necessary technical expertise themselves. That is probably rather a protective assertion not to lose face. But at least they seem to have learned something from it now and want to review such requests technically before they (unjustifiably) act.

TheKarateKid 6y ago
This. Github is acting like the knight in shining armor, but they really didn't do anything except respond to the backlash their complicit no-questions-asked removal caused.
- TechBro8615 6y ago
  On the contrary, they’re doing a lot, including establishing a $1M legal defense fund for developers and a technical team to review the validity of anti-circumvention DMCA notices. It seems like they’re doing a lot more than just paying lip service to EFF / developer freedom, and they should be commended for it.
  - TheKarateKid 6y ago
    They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub. Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.
    - Vorh 6y ago
      Even if largely PR, that's still a million dollars.
      - woofie11 6y ago
        After Nat's cynically duplicitous comments and actions, it's hard to view this as anything other than PR. A $1 million expense is not a big advertising expense for github. It was a $7.5 billion sale. Microsoft spend 0.013% of that on this PR piece. I can't imagine the fallout from this didn't wipe several times that off of github's valuation. If github had done this before the EFF letter, it would have been something else. With the EFF letter, they have zero liability to reinstating the repo, and are borderline legally required to do so.
    - abnry 6y ago
      Or they just panicked with the RIAA request and needed time to regroup. Cynicism doesn't have to be a hobby.
      - freshhawk 6y ago
        Being a rube isn't a great hobby either, that's why "fool me once ..." is a famous saying. As are the various versions of "who benefits?". Pretty decent rules of thumb. And at a higher level ... who cares if they did it maliciously or because they "panicked", you can't ever know that anyway and either one means you can predict what they will do in similar situations.
      - TheKarateKid 6y ago
        This isn't the first frivolous DMCA request GitHub complied with. A company owned by one of the largest tech companies in the world doesn't need to "panic" about something like this. Sounds like cynicism is your hobby, buddy.
        abnry 6y ago
        That's not what cynicism means.
    - naniwaduni 6y ago
      We should still incentivize correcting wrongs over letting them stand.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
panarky 6y ago
Github links to the EFF letter [0] in the DMCA repo. This letter spells out in clear, convincing and explicit detail why the RIAA was wrong. Profit-making Github and Microsoft could have performed this analysis and championed developers themselves, but it was the non-profit EFF that actually did the work. EFF deserves more credit than just a link for fighting against this shit. [0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-16-RIAA-reversal-effletter.pdf https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...
- Rochus 6y ago
  Yes, I've read it. That's why I came to my conclusion. Btw. nearly all of the facts in the referenced letter were expressed in HN discussions just a few hours after the takedown. From my point of view they were obvious.
  - mmcdermott 6y ago
    I agree that they were obvious and, as you say, the HN conversations show that they occurred to many technologists. That said, I think there is an argument to say that the EFF was better qualified to write the letter. The reason being that MSFT wants to look like an impartial content host (to avoid being liable) and the EFF is explicitly an advocacy group. If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers. I completely understand the optics of EFF doing the heavy lifting on this one.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      > If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers Well, that's what they are actually doing now; factually, it does not matter whether there was a letter by EFF or not; they should have come to the same conclusion even without the EFF; moreover, Github/MS are not accountable to the RIAA; conflicts of interest are not an issue here; in fact, to meet the due diligence a hoster would have to check whether a DMCA request meets the formal requirements and is well substantiated, otherwise the hoster could even be liable to pay damages to the unjustifiably blocked project.

by Rochus 6y ago

TheKarateKid 6y ago

This. Github is acting like the knight in shining armor, but they really didn't do anything except respond to the backlash their complicit no-questions-asked removal caused.

TechBro8615 6y ago
On the contrary, they’re doing a lot, including establishing a $1M legal defense fund for developers and a technical team to review the validity of anti-circumvention DMCA notices. It seems like they’re doing a lot more than just paying lip service to EFF / developer freedom, and they should be commended for it.
- TheKarateKid 6y ago
  They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub. Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.
  - Vorh 6y ago
    Even if largely PR, that's still a million dollars.
    - woofie11 6y ago
      After Nat's cynically duplicitous comments and actions, it's hard to view this as anything other than PR. A $1 million expense is not a big advertising expense for github. It was a $7.5 billion sale. Microsoft spend 0.013% of that on this PR piece. I can't imagine the fallout from this didn't wipe several times that off of github's valuation. If github had done this before the EFF letter, it would have been something else. With the EFF letter, they have zero liability to reinstating the repo, and are borderline legally required to do so.
  - abnry 6y ago
    Or they just panicked with the RIAA request and needed time to regroup. Cynicism doesn't have to be a hobby.
    - freshhawk 6y ago
      Being a rube isn't a great hobby either, that's why "fool me once ..." is a famous saying. As are the various versions of "who benefits?". Pretty decent rules of thumb. And at a higher level ... who cares if they did it maliciously or because they "panicked", you can't ever know that anyway and either one means you can predict what they will do in similar situations.
    - TheKarateKid 6y ago
      This isn't the first frivolous DMCA request GitHub complied with. A company owned by one of the largest tech companies in the world doesn't need to "panic" about something like this. Sounds like cynicism is your hobby, buddy.
      - abnry 6y ago
        That's not what cynicism means.
  - naniwaduni 6y ago
    We should still incentivize correcting wrongs over letting them stand.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]

panarky 6y ago

Github links to the EFF letter [0] in the DMCA repo. This letter spells out in clear, convincing and explicit detail why the RIAA was wrong. Profit-making Github and Microsoft could have performed this analysis and championed developers themselves, but it was the non-profit EFF that actually did the work. EFF deserves more credit than just a link for fighting against this shit. [0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-16-RIAA-reversal-effletter.pdf https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...

Rochus 6y ago
Yes, I've read it. That's why I came to my conclusion. Btw. nearly all of the facts in the referenced letter were expressed in HN discussions just a few hours after the takedown. From my point of view they were obvious.
- mmcdermott 6y ago
  I agree that they were obvious and, as you say, the HN conversations show that they occurred to many technologists. That said, I think there is an argument to say that the EFF was better qualified to write the letter. The reason being that MSFT wants to look like an impartial content host (to avoid being liable) and the EFF is explicitly an advocacy group. If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers. I completely understand the optics of EFF doing the heavy lifting on this one.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    > If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers Well, that's what they are actually doing now; factually, it does not matter whether there was a letter by EFF or not; they should have come to the same conclusion even without the EFF; moreover, Github/MS are not accountable to the RIAA; conflicts of interest are not an issue here; in fact, to meet the due diligence a hoster would have to check whether a DMCA request meets the formal requirements and is well substantiated, otherwise the hoster could even be liable to pay damages to the unjustifiably blocked project.