5 ms·

The DMCA notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2022/12/2022-12-07-pflotsh.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2022/12/2022-12-0... And t

The DMCA notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2022/12/2022-12-07-pflotsh.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2022/12/2022-12-0... And the complaint itself: > On GitHub at https://github.com/revanced/revanced-patches https://github.com/revanced/revanced-patches there is a patch that unlocks the subscription without payment for "Pflotsh ECMWF" and various other products. If that’s true, this can’t really be very controversial?

15155 4y ago
Correct me if I am wrong: the DMCA takedown process was not designed for circumvention devices - this is what courts are for. This company is not the copyright holder to these patches - they did not write them nor are they derivative works, so they need to use other legal means to approach this situation. This is not first time this has happened with GitHub.
- musicale 4y ago
  I think we may have a winner. Hopefully GitHub will learn eventually.
- rieTohgh6 4y ago
  > nor are they derivative works That isn't so obvious to me. For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack. I am not sure if DMCA is right tool but I totally understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host it.
  - reisse 4y ago
    > For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack. Yes, and you cannot take down crack using DMCA either! Edit: If the crack is a keygen or patcher, of course. Patched orginal binaries can be taken down.
    - sofixa 4y ago
      > Patched orginal binaries can be taken down. That's what Vanced was, isn't it the same case with ReVanced?
      - realusername 4y ago
        No, Revanced only has the patches themselves in the repo, there's zero source code or binary or anything copyright related belonging to Google here, the DMCA is invalid.
      - flawi 4y ago
        My understanding was that `revanced-patches` contained just that: patches. The patches themselves are applied to the target apps on the end user device, so revanced doesn't need to host prepatched binaries that they don't own the copyright to. Other moral or legal issues aside, this is a pretty clear abuse of the DMCA as far as I understand it.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- lapser 4y ago
  If I'm reading this[0] correct, according to GitHub it includes that too. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-policies/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
  - davorak 4y ago
    The weather data that the circumvention provides access to is not copy righted though right? From other comments I gather it comes from public data and is not the companies. If so it would not meet the criteria in the first sentence of your link: > The Copyright Act also prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to works protected by copyright. That is an interesting corner case, not sure if it is a bug or a feature.
3np 4y ago
FWIW commit 44bc7074ea8aaa6f774ad23dd0667477cbe1caf1 (GH search) removes the mentioned parts if anyone wants a "clean" version. Apart from the taken down revanced-patches repo, other repos in the revanced gh org are still up.

15155 4y ago

Correct me if I am wrong: the DMCA takedown process was not designed for circumvention devices - this is what courts are for. This company is not the copyright holder to these patches - they did not write them nor are they derivative works, so they need to use other legal means to approach this situation. This is not first time this has happened with GitHub.

musicale 4y ago
I think we may have a winner. Hopefully GitHub will learn eventually.
rieTohgh6 4y ago
> nor are they derivative works That isn't so obvious to me. For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack. I am not sure if DMCA is right tool but I totally understand why Microsoft wouldn't want to host it.
- reisse 4y ago
  > For all intents and purposes this is no different from crack. Yes, and you cannot take down crack using DMCA either! Edit: If the crack is a keygen or patcher, of course. Patched orginal binaries can be taken down.
  - sofixa 4y ago
    > Patched orginal binaries can be taken down. That's what Vanced was, isn't it the same case with ReVanced?
    - realusername 4y ago
      No, Revanced only has the patches themselves in the repo, there's zero source code or binary or anything copyright related belonging to Google here, the DMCA is invalid.
    - flawi 4y ago
      My understanding was that `revanced-patches` contained just that: patches. The patches themselves are applied to the target apps on the end user device, so revanced doesn't need to host prepatched binaries that they don't own the copyright to. Other moral or legal issues aside, this is a pretty clear abuse of the DMCA as far as I understand it.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
lapser 4y ago
If I'm reading this[0] correct, according to GitHub it includes that too. [0] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-policies/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
- davorak 4y ago
  The weather data that the circumvention provides access to is not copy righted though right? From other comments I gather it comes from public data and is not the companies. If so it would not meet the criteria in the first sentence of your link: > The Copyright Act also prohibits the circumvention of technological measures that effectively control access to works protected by copyright. That is an interesting corner case, not sure if it is a bug or a feature.

3np 4y ago

FWIW commit 44bc7074ea8aaa6f774ad23dd0667477cbe1caf1 (GH search) removes the mentioned parts if anyone wants a "clean" version. Apart from the taken down revanced-patches repo, other repos in the revanced gh org are still up.