5 ms·

The notice is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-20-pearson.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2... K

The notice is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-20-pearson.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2... Kevin Wayne (repo owner presumably) is listed as co-author on the book that is published by Pearson, who have issued the notice. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sedgewick-Algorithms-Fourth-Edition-Deluxe-Book-and-24-Part-Lecture-Series/PGM2366556.html https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sedgewic...

phoe-krk 6y ago
Yours sincerely, [private] Internet Investigator On behalf of: Pearson Education, Inc. ------------------------------------ Seems like another glorious victory of the overzealous online copyright strikers. Nothing out of the ordinary, will likely get sorted out in a day or two.
- st_goliath 6y ago
  > Internet Investigator Haha... that's a brilliant euphemism for "profession Google user". Or maybe we could call it "serial scrapist"? Of all the silly titles I tried to come up with, this sure hadn't crossed my mind yet. And it has a catchy ring to it too. "Internet Investigator" got to be somewhere up there between "Adult Software Engineer" (middle ground between "Junior" and "Senior") and "Server Captain/Commodore/Admiral".
  - rzzzt 6y ago
    I'm a bit of Web Browsing Enthusiast myself.
    - BenFeldman1930 6y ago
      Check out our recent job offers at 221B Baker Street, London.
  - Operyl 6y ago
    It literally is the name of the company, haha. https://theinternetinvestigators.com/ https://theinternetinvestigators.com/
    - minnehaha 6y ago
      Actually, "Internet investigator" is the person's job title, not the company name. The person listed the title like he is an employee or contractor representing Pearson. Anyone 'claiming' to represent them could have sent it.
- caretak3r 6y ago
  Pearson. Absolutely evil.
mvolfik 6y ago
yup, it was the author, see counternotice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-29-pearson-counternotice.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...
- malka 6y ago
  > So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address. Ahhh I see that the DMCA is still a wonderful doxing weapon :)
  - mvolfik 6y ago
    well, if this is the author of the book, they probably have their contact anyways. And if the claim was clearly illegitimate and the owner didn't want to provide this, I guess he could try going without it. There are probably easier ways to dox people
molyss 6y ago
When someone “swears under the penalty of perjury” something that is inaccurate, and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty, there’s something wrong with the legal system.
- hoppyhoppy2 6y ago
  > and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty I assume you're missing a word there?
  - salawat 6y ago
    They probably meant "doesn't". If it is in error, I am curious how much work it would take to get that perjury result though.
    - brentonator 6y ago
      Should be automatic like the DMCA filings they send out.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  Regardless of the actual form of the notice (so long as it is not deficient), under the DMCA the only part for which is actually treated as under penalty of perjury is the claim of the person giving notice being or representing the copyright owner or exclusive licensee of the the work identified (notably, the claim that the particular content to be taken down is infringing is not under penalty of perjury.) While I don’t know the relationship between this “investigator” and Pearson, the claim that Pearson is the owner or exclusive licensee of the books identified does not appear to be in dispute. This does not appear to be a defect in the application of the penalty by the legal system but of what the penalty applies to under the relevant law.
  - paledot 6y ago
    Not quite. The counter-notice also includes that language, "I swear under penalty of perjury that the notice-giver is wrong". So there's no penalty for lying in the notice, but the same can't be said for the victim of the notice. What's more, you _can't_ counter-notice that your use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use - that has to be found in court, so hopefully you've got deep pockets. DMCA is an awful law.

phoe-krk 6y ago

Yours sincerely, [private] Internet Investigator On behalf of: Pearson Education, Inc. ------------------------------------ Seems like another glorious victory of the overzealous online copyright strikers. Nothing out of the ordinary, will likely get sorted out in a day or two.

st_goliath 6y ago
> Internet Investigator Haha... that's a brilliant euphemism for "profession Google user". Or maybe we could call it "serial scrapist"? Of all the silly titles I tried to come up with, this sure hadn't crossed my mind yet. And it has a catchy ring to it too. "Internet Investigator" got to be somewhere up there between "Adult Software Engineer" (middle ground between "Junior" and "Senior") and "Server Captain/Commodore/Admiral".
- rzzzt 6y ago
  I'm a bit of Web Browsing Enthusiast myself.
  - BenFeldman1930 6y ago
    Check out our recent job offers at 221B Baker Street, London.
- Operyl 6y ago
  It literally is the name of the company, haha. https://theinternetinvestigators.com/ https://theinternetinvestigators.com/
  - minnehaha 6y ago
    Actually, "Internet investigator" is the person's job title, not the company name. The person listed the title like he is an employee or contractor representing Pearson. Anyone 'claiming' to represent them could have sent it.
caretak3r 6y ago
Pearson. Absolutely evil.

mvolfik 6y ago

yup, it was the author, see counternotice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-29-pearson-counternotice.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...

malka 6y ago
> So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address. Ahhh I see that the DMCA is still a wonderful doxing weapon :)
- mvolfik 6y ago
  well, if this is the author of the book, they probably have their contact anyways. And if the claim was clearly illegitimate and the owner didn't want to provide this, I guess he could try going without it. There are probably easier ways to dox people

molyss 6y ago

When someone “swears under the penalty of perjury” something that is inaccurate, and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty, there’s something wrong with the legal system.

hoppyhoppy2 6y ago
> and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty I assume you're missing a word there?
- salawat 6y ago
  They probably meant "doesn't". If it is in error, I am curious how much work it would take to get that perjury result though.
  - brentonator 6y ago
    Should be automatic like the DMCA filings they send out.
dragonwriter 6y ago
Regardless of the actual form of the notice (so long as it is not deficient), under the DMCA the only part for which is actually treated as under penalty of perjury is the claim of the person giving notice being or representing the copyright owner or exclusive licensee of the the work identified (notably, the claim that the particular content to be taken down is infringing is not under penalty of perjury.) While I don’t know the relationship between this “investigator” and Pearson, the claim that Pearson is the owner or exclusive licensee of the books identified does not appear to be in dispute. This does not appear to be a defect in the application of the penalty by the legal system but of what the penalty applies to under the relevant law.
- paledot 6y ago
  Not quite. The counter-notice also includes that language, "I swear under penalty of perjury that the notice-giver is wrong". So there's no penalty for lying in the notice, but the same can't be said for the victim of the notice. What's more, you _can't_ counter-notice that your use of copyrighted material is protected by fair use - that has to be found in court, so hopefully you've got deep pockets. DMCA is an awful law.