5 ms·

This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added

This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.

syshum 6y ago
I 100% disagree, the fact that as a society we are accepting of this kind of thing as "just the way it is", is the problem "Ohh its just some bot" should never be an acceptable response, and people creating these bots should have massive fines attached to their false positives. Otherwise there is no incentive to actually validate or improve what these automation systems are doing, the incentive today is the flag everything and worry about it later... That is not something society should accept
2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago
> or even worth talking about every time something like this happens I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. Github is obviously not nearly this bad (yet?). This case will obviously be restored, it's a popular author, but what about people that don't have this reach? I don't see how talking about this situation can be a bad thing.
- tzs 5y ago
  > I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. YouTube/Google is bad because they use their own system instead of or in addition to the system required to get the DMCA safe harbor. For sites that simply follow DMCA, such as GitHub, there is no need for the issue to reach the news. There is no need to be popular or have any reach. The most obscure poster with no audience can easily get their content restored. Here is what happens at such sites: 1. Someone claiming to represent the copyright owner files a take down request. 2. The site temporarily takes the content down, and notifies whoever posted the content. 3. The poster files a counter-notice saying that they have the legal right to post the content. 4. The site put the content back up, and notifies the party that filed the take down notice, telling them who filed the counter-notice. The site is then out of the loop. The content is back up, and the party claiming copyright violation cannot sue the site over this. The site is now in the DMCA safe harbor. If the party claiming violation wants to take it farther, they need to go to court and sue the party that posted the content. The counter-notice is trivial to fill out and file. Here's the one for this case [1] if you want to see how simple the form is. [1] 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...
ClumsyPilot 6y ago
Why should someone's 'mistakes' damage my liberties and result in takedown of my property? this is textbook harassment.
- janoc 5y ago
  That's a good question but for the wrong audience. Take it with the US Congress who has adopted so lopsided copyright law under the heavy lobbying of the music and movie industry in the wake of Napster.
- liliumregale 5y ago
  Is that a pun, because this was done by Pearson?
matkoniecz 5y ago
"someone higher up will notice it" is not always true no consequences for malicious or invalid DMCA is ridiculous (1$ penalty, paid to targeted individual/company for each invalid DMCA would be a good start)
ac42 5y ago
Yes, like the parent says, don't overreact. This is totally not symptomatic for lopsided legislation. So please be quiet already, it will be easier for everyone. You are worried you might be next? Kid, grow up, this is life, nobody said it'd be easy. Here's your gun in case the tanks are coming... /s

syshum 6y ago

I 100% disagree, the fact that as a society we are accepting of this kind of thing as "just the way it is", is the problem "Ohh its just some bot" should never be an acceptable response, and people creating these bots should have massive fines attached to their false positives. Otherwise there is no incentive to actually validate or improve what these automation systems are doing, the incentive today is the flag everything and worry about it later... That is not something society should accept

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 6y ago

> or even worth talking about every time something like this happens I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. Github is obviously not nearly this bad (yet?). This case will obviously be restored, it's a popular author, but what about people that don't have this reach? I don't see how talking about this situation can be a bad thing.

tzs 5y ago
> I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. YouTube/Google is bad because they use their own system instead of or in addition to the system required to get the DMCA safe harbor. For sites that simply follow DMCA, such as GitHub, there is no need for the issue to reach the news. There is no need to be popular or have any reach. The most obscure poster with no audience can easily get their content restored. Here is what happens at such sites: 1. Someone claiming to represent the copyright owner files a take down request. 2. The site temporarily takes the content down, and notifies whoever posted the content. 3. The poster files a counter-notice saying that they have the legal right to post the content. 4. The site put the content back up, and notifies the party that filed the take down notice, telling them who filed the counter-notice. The site is then out of the loop. The content is back up, and the party claiming copyright violation cannot sue the site over this. The site is now in the DMCA safe harbor. If the party claiming violation wants to take it farther, they need to go to court and sue the party that posted the content. The counter-notice is trivial to fill out and file. Here's the one for this case [1] if you want to see how simple the form is. [1] 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...

ClumsyPilot 6y ago

Why should someone's 'mistakes' damage my liberties and result in takedown of my property? this is textbook harassment.

janoc 5y ago
That's a good question but for the wrong audience. Take it with the US Congress who has adopted so lopsided copyright law under the heavy lobbying of the music and movie industry in the wake of Napster.
liliumregale 5y ago
Is that a pun, because this was done by Pearson?

matkoniecz 5y ago

"someone higher up will notice it" is not always true no consequences for malicious or invalid DMCA is ridiculous (1$ penalty, paid to targeted individual/company for each invalid DMCA would be a good start)

ac42 5y ago

Yes, like the parent says, don't overreact. This is totally not symptomatic for lopsided legislation. So please be quiet already, it will be easier for everyone. You are worried you might be next? Kid, grow up, this is life, nobody said it'd be easy. Here's your gun in case the tanks are coming... /s