5 ms·

It's weird that we expect Github to do that, in a way. The repo might well be hosted on there for free, but we all want Github to spend a ton in legal fees to d

It's weird that we expect Github to do that, in a way. The repo might well be hosted on there for free, but we all want Github to spend a ton in legal fees to defend something they make zero cash from. I'm not sure what my point is here other than finding it sad that code hosting is so centralised.

wolco5 6y ago
We do. We want to see github or anyone defend any fake lawsuit against them.
- astrange 6y ago
  Good thing there aren't any lawsuits against anyone then.
themacguffinman 6y ago
I think it's in Github's interests to push back on this. MPA's dubious legal requests likely cost Github time, money, and PR to resolve properly. It adds up over time and I doubt any company wants to be caught in the middle of an arms-race conflict like this, nipping it in the bud could very well be worth the upfront legal fees.
- Hamuko 6y ago
  I imagine MPA would also be emboldened by this if Github removes the Nyaa repository forever on what is basically a pretty flimsy basis ("Nyaa.si uses the code and that's a piracy website so the code itself is piracy"). What's next? Transmission and rtorrent?
wongarsu 6y ago
Github's market position is in no small part based on network effects and depends on nearly every open source project being hosted there. Now imagine a competitor promising some kind of protection against these kinds of frivolous DMCAs. That could lead to a large chunk of media, p2p and security software moving there, threatening Github's position in those niches and putting that competitor on more equal footing.
c0d4h 6y ago
A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses.
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  >A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses. This is a remarkably good idea. Add an explicit clause to major open source project licenses that disallow use by the MPAA and similar groups, along with enough explicit damages spelled out to give it teeth.
- account42 6y ago
  Then those licenses would no longer be open source licenses.

wolco5 6y ago

We do. We want to see github or anyone defend any fake lawsuit against them.

astrange 6y ago
Good thing there aren't any lawsuits against anyone then.

themacguffinman 6y ago

I think it's in Github's interests to push back on this. MPA's dubious legal requests likely cost Github time, money, and PR to resolve properly. It adds up over time and I doubt any company wants to be caught in the middle of an arms-race conflict like this, nipping it in the bud could very well be worth the upfront legal fees.

Hamuko 6y ago
I imagine MPA would also be emboldened by this if Github removes the Nyaa repository forever on what is basically a pretty flimsy basis ("Nyaa.si uses the code and that's a piracy website so the code itself is piracy"). What's next? Transmission and rtorrent?

wongarsu 6y ago

Github's market position is in no small part based on network effects and depends on nearly every open source project being hosted there. Now imagine a competitor promising some kind of protection against these kinds of frivolous DMCAs. That could lead to a large chunk of media, p2p and security software moving there, threatening Github's position in those niches and putting that competitor on more equal footing.

c0d4h 6y ago

A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses.

alasdair_ 6y ago
>A better way would be to start excluding MPA and their behaviour in our open source licenses. This is a remarkably good idea. Add an explicit clause to major open source project licenses that disallow use by the MPAA and similar groups, along with enough explicit damages spelled out to give it teeth.
account42 6y ago
Then those licenses would no longer be open source licenses.