4 ms·

> The claimant here has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder of the code in the named repository. No they didn't: > "We are the

by seoaeu 5y ago

> The claimant here has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder of the code in the named repository. No they didn't: > "We are the copyright owner of the official LCP encryption profile used by ebook distributors worldwide"

mindslight 5y ago
How does quoting a passage where they assert copyright ownership over one thing imply that they did not also assert copyright ownership over something else? > What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL. ... https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools > the content of the repo was illegally obtained. The repo and its forks must be shut down entirely. > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. In addition, the larger context of a DMCA Takedown Request is to assert expedient takedown of a copy of work that you have copyright ownership over. Adding a bunch of backpedaling filler to a DMCA Takedown Request does not alter its basic purpose. edit: Sheesh it looks like Microsoft is actually encouraging claimants to write these fraudulent DMCA notices regarding circumvention technology [0]. So this is basically another extralegal "Content ID" process, and Microsoft being overzealous with takedowns makes them a terrible option for hosting your stuff. I'd love to see the law produce some justice here for once, but the real answer to these corporate-bought one-sided laws is IPFS and the like. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...

by seoaeu 5y ago

mindslight 5y ago

How does quoting a passage where they assert copyright ownership over one thing imply that they did not also assert copyright ownership over something else? > What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL. ... https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools > the content of the repo was illegally obtained. The repo and its forks must be shut down entirely. > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed. In addition, the larger context of a DMCA Takedown Request is to assert expedient takedown of a copy of work that you have copyright ownership over. Adding a bunch of backpedaling filler to a DMCA Takedown Request does not alter its basic purpose. edit: Sheesh it looks like Microsoft is actually encouraging claimants to write these fraudulent DMCA notices regarding circumvention technology [0]. So this is basically another extralegal "Content ID" process, and Microsoft being overzealous with takedowns makes them a terrible option for hosting your stuff. I'd love to see the law produce some justice here for once, but the real answer to these corporate-bought one-sided laws is IPFS and the like. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...