3 ms·

> How is that not "granting permission" to whoever subsequently download the video? Legally, it’s complicated. If I upload code to GitHub with no license attac

> How is that not "granting permission" to whoever subsequently download the video? Legally, it’s complicated. If I upload code to GitHub with no license attached, it is technically “all rights reserved.” As in, you have no right to use it at all. If someone has no way of finding out their legal right to use my code, they aren’t allowed to. Same with YouTube: if I make a movie and put it on YT, that’s not an implicit license for you to copy elsewhere. Logically, it being on a torrent website, you would think it would be different because seeding is a thing, but the law says otherwise. The problem is that the law doesn’t make a distinction between “seeding” and “distribution”. They’re one and the same. Disclaimer: IANAL

emilecantin 6y ago
What if Github added a default license in their TOS? Language like "If you don't explicitly add a license to your repo, we assume you meant MIT". I think that'd clarify that gray area. In that same vein, a torrent site could have something like this on their upload page: "By adding this torrent to the tracker, you certify that you have the rights to distribute the file, and you hereby grant permission to distribute the file to every user of the site." I don't think Hansmeier could pull off his stunt anymore, as he just granted permission to everyone to do what he was trying to catch them doing.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I’d be interesting in how a term like that on GitHub would work. There’s a reason that you have to check a box when agreeing to the TOS; it’s you staying an affirmative to consenting. Implied consent isn’t held up in the courts as well. Something like an affirmative checkbox on torrent trackers would be a better thing, but it would only prevent situations like Prenda (which are rare).
  - emilecantin 6y ago
    It'd put the onus on the original uploaders; all downloaders / seeders would (in theory) be able to point to this clause and say "see, I thought I was authorized to do that. Go after [original uploader] instead". Rights-holders already go after them; this would have the effect of protecting everyone else. At least, that's my theory (but IANAL).
- rrobukef 6y ago
  See https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... Note: Youtube has similar terms (the Youtube license) granting all users the rights to reproduce AND modify all videos. Now I wonder if you can do information laundering. i.e. "I was granted permission by Youtube" to appeal a DMCA.

emilecantin 6y ago

What if Github added a default license in their TOS? Language like "If you don't explicitly add a license to your repo, we assume you meant MIT". I think that'd clarify that gray area. In that same vein, a torrent site could have something like this on their upload page: "By adding this torrent to the tracker, you certify that you have the rights to distribute the file, and you hereby grant permission to distribute the file to every user of the site." I don't think Hansmeier could pull off his stunt anymore, as he just granted permission to everyone to do what he was trying to catch them doing.

colejohnson66 6y ago
I’d be interesting in how a term like that on GitHub would work. There’s a reason that you have to check a box when agreeing to the TOS; it’s you staying an affirmative to consenting. Implied consent isn’t held up in the courts as well. Something like an affirmative checkbox on torrent trackers would be a better thing, but it would only prevent situations like Prenda (which are rare).
- emilecantin 6y ago
  It'd put the onus on the original uploaders; all downloaders / seeders would (in theory) be able to point to this clause and say "see, I thought I was authorized to do that. Go after [original uploader] instead". Rights-holders already go after them; this would have the effect of protecting everyone else. At least, that's my theory (but IANAL).
rrobukef 6y ago
See https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-policy/github-terms-of-service#5-license-grant-to-other-users https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-... Note: Youtube has similar terms (the Youtube license) granting all users the rights to reproduce AND modify all videos. Now I wonder if you can do information laundering. i.e. "I was granted permission by Youtube" to appeal a DMCA.