4 ms·

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 Git

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.
LordDragonfang 6y ago
The EFF is probably more qualified to respond to this, actually, since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom works from malicious DMCA notices. Microsoft's best play is just paying them, which other comments indicate they are doing. The EFF isn't just some non-profit, it's the premier legal entity defending internet freedom. This is squarely in their wheelhouse.
- Rochus 6y ago
  > since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom And why would one assume that Github or MS do not have such experts? They undoubtedly have the technical know-how, and the primary findings in the letter are of a technical nature, or even obvious to technically savvy people. And the court decisions referred to are not about fair use or free-as-in-freedom.
  - saagarjha 6y ago
    Because Microsoft's goals are not directly aligned with fighting DMCA and similar legislation. It takes more than being technically savvy to fight legislation like this; actually, I would say being technically savvy but not experienced will leave you in an unfortunate spot because you'll see through all the copyright stuff but be unable to effectively fight it in court.
    - Rochus 6y ago
      The question was rhetoric. They have huge legal departments all over the world. Copyright, licensing and patent contract law are among the most important areas for these companies.

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.

LordDragonfang 6y ago

The EFF is probably more qualified to respond to this, actually, since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom works from malicious DMCA notices. Microsoft's best play is just paying them, which other comments indicate they are doing. The EFF isn't just some non-profit, it's the premier legal entity defending internet freedom. This is squarely in their wheelhouse.

Rochus 6y ago
> since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom And why would one assume that Github or MS do not have such experts? They undoubtedly have the technical know-how, and the primary findings in the letter are of a technical nature, or even obvious to technically savvy people. And the court decisions referred to are not about fair use or free-as-in-freedom.
- saagarjha 6y ago
  Because Microsoft's goals are not directly aligned with fighting DMCA and similar legislation. It takes more than being technically savvy to fight legislation like this; actually, I would say being technically savvy but not experienced will leave you in an unfortunate spot because you'll see through all the copyright stuff but be unable to effectively fight it in court.
  - Rochus 6y ago
    The question was rhetoric. They have huge legal departments all over the world. Copyright, licensing and patent contract law are among the most important areas for these companies.