8 ms·

DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub

burundi_coffee 4y ago
This discussion [1] on another repository of the same account seems to be related. Apparently "the first message on both repositories was DMCA takedown, then for some reason it was changed". [1] https://github.com/orgs/iptv-org/discussions/12 https://github.com/orgs/iptv-org/discussions/12
bm3719 4y ago
Any plausible (and not expensive) recourse in such situations? I've had a game server emulator project DMCA-ed previously, and my team's casual research couldn't come up with any solutions. Despite the takedown's text being factually incorrect (it was all rewritten code, not proprietary), there seemed to be no one to appeal to. Instead, we just moved it off GitHub with no further negative consequences. This resulted in some lost visibility and broken links though.
- gnopgnip 4y ago
  Did you submit a counterclaim?
- ipaddr 4y ago
  Where did you move to?
  - bm3719 4y ago
    Self-hosted GitLab with a <project-name>.com domain.
- toast0 4y ago
  Not really. I don't think Github has any continuing service obligation to you, especially as a non-paying user. Taking Github to court to find out for sure is probably expensive. In theory, you could provide a counter notice, and Github says they will reenable repos after two weeks of a counter notice unless the claimed owner provides Github with notice of a lawsuit. But you may want to get legal advice before you do this. Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    It might be expensive but the false claimant would end up paying the legal bills
  - ajsnigrutin 4y ago
    > Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case. Is there some "small claims" type of court where that would do that with minimal cost for the damaged person? I know way too many people who posted stuff on youtube that was either clear fair use or clearly not the copyrighted content, but youtubes automatic ID of music muted or removed their videos... If each of those could start a process for eg. $100, and got their $100 back + all the lost monetization (not a lot, but doesn't matter), companies would quickly change the way they operate.
    - Mindwipe 4y ago
      Proving fair use is legally complex, and to be blunt it is very possible you are incorrect - in any case, it is unlikely a lower court would judge on it at all given the complexity rather than referring it to a higher court (note this is a generalisation as parent doesn't identify the territory they are in, but it's a reasonable one). Also note that YouTube's ContentID process is not a DMCA process. It is a privately negotiated system that YouTube have come to a commercial arrangement with various rightsowners in order to minimise their legal liability. You have no come back against this, because they are not DMCA notices at the first stage to be improper. If you want a video hosting service that is going to have your back on this then you are probably going to need to use one that is more expensive than free, and quite possibly demonstrate that you have indemnity insurance.
than3 4y ago
Well, its tough to say what the situation actually is. 9 days with no response, is a surefire way to force any professional group off your host, and embroil yourself in bad press, and potential litigation. That said the group may not be that professional but they deserve a timely response. Can't say for sure but this sure looks and sounds more like potential antitrust violations/issues on the MS/Github side, than DMCA stuff. I mean the silence speaks absolute volumes, and companies that do this to free customers will do this to paying customers. There is no financial benefit to doing this and keeping quiet, only damage. Everyone in business knows the classic age-old wisdom, what you do in small things that don't matter, dictates how you handle big things when real risks are on the line. They haven't clarified or communicated with the maintainers aside from vague boilerplate which doesn't say or point to any reasonable knowledge of what their (customers) did wrong. So, just what everyone has been saying for years as opinion (but confirmed now). You can't use Github for anything where you need a professional response.
- djbusby 4y ago
  Would it be different if one is paying GitHub? It should be (I hope so). And same should be true at GitLab? Anyone tested it? Or am I paying for "nothing"?
  - than3 4y ago
    It is doubtful, its age old wisdom for a reason. Most cases these days, you pay for the value add features (differentiation strategy) but the base ... (free) is in most cases monetized through alternate strategies. It is how they can cover costs to provide free to anyone that wants to sign up. Unless you have a written SLA that makes guarantees, with firm timetables, you most likely aren't getting what you think you bought.
  - naikrovek 4y ago
    the DMCA does not care if you pay or not. the 10-day counterclaim response window is required by law.
    - 4y ago
lxe 4y ago
This is a collection of publicly available TV streams from all over the world. What could possibly be there that violates DMCA?
- Scoundreller 4y ago
  My thought is someone owning the rights to something in CountryB, but CountryA’s TV service is openly broadcasting it, which is fine if you’re in CountryA, but not elsewhere.
- zinekeller 4y ago
  Just checked a copy of repo (won't link here). A lot of cable-only channels that are definitely not offered to the public. It seems that the repository accepts any and all links, including links that definitely smells unauthorized (IP-only stream links that correspond to residential IPs in eastern Europe or south-east Asia, most legitimate free IPTV streams are hosted either in Akamai or IBM's whatever-they-call-Ustream-now).
boomboomsubban 4y ago
Github posts their DMCA claims, and I'm not seeing one for iptv https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=iptv&type= https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=iptv&type=
- adobrawy 4y ago
  The DMCA repository was last updated 2 days ago, and this link likely appeared on HackerNews only a few hours after the IPTV repository was unpublished. Therefore, it appears that they simply have not yet published the DMCA notice.
  - syrrim 4y ago
    It seems like they don't publish updates on weekends or US holidays. So if it is a dmca, we're likely to see it published in that repo tomorrow.
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    From other posts, the repository has been down for at least some of the past week. Long enough you'd expect any notice to be posted.
  - arp242 4y ago
    No, you get a different message for that. For example: https://github.com/dts50/dts50.github.io https://github.com/dts50/dts50.github.io
- justinclift 4y ago
  Checking the most likely spot in that repo (eg without using the search feature), doesn't show any likely looking candidates either: https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2023/02 https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2023/02 That being said, the most recent dated one was 23rd Feb (last Thursday), so it does seem possible there might be a lag of a few days for stuff to show up. Not real sure though.
nonethewiser 4y ago
And what is iptv?
- jrm4 4y ago
  Came for this. I vaguely sort of got it before, let's Streisand this bad boy
2h 4y ago
I would recommend avoiding making contributions on GitHub. If you want an account for search and whatnot fine, but I had an account with hundreds of stars killed. They said it was because I created a second account. I said they could delete the second account, or I would do it. They refused to accept this suggestion and are keeping both banned. What's worse is they also kill every single issue, PR and comment you've ever posted. It's quite cruel and unnecessary.
- than3 4y ago
  When you are a platform as big as them, you can only do this so much before it crosses a line into antitrust. Biden's Administration just hired a ton of anti-trust lawyers. Unfortunately its a sad fact that the people making these decisions are the people who don't have the natural sense to not do this in the first place for the simple reason that the behavior drives negative sentiment and outcomes in the long run for little if any net benefit. They need to make Executives personally liable for stuff like this, otherwise they won't learn that they can't get away (it costs them something) as opposed to a business as usual slap on the wrist with the behavior baked into sales.
  - huslage 4y ago
    This is about as far from antitrust as you can get. It’s fine to think you know things, but you don’t.
    - than3 4y ago
      > This is about as far from antitrust you can get. Not really, no. No DMCA notice is posted, its simply a vague you broke our ToS but we're not going to tell you how or why so you can correct it according to the mods, and then the non-response for 9 days. Github owns Microsoft, Microsoft has an interest in Content, IPTV like many other technologies can potentially be used by people and businesses for a wide variety of legal uses. If a business closes an account for cause, you say why, you allow access to the maintainers to migrate (if its not a legal issue), and you keep the account closed. If you don't say why, block access immediately, and don't provide a legitimate reason, you could be in violation of the Sherman act either directly, or more often via third-party liability when it comes to open source. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that much, its far from clear that its not antitrust, and on a more personal note, you should be more careful with those snipes. Its against the HN ToS after all.
Kim_Bruning 4y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.co... Shortly before takedown
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
Note to article submitters: The HN audience aren't mind readers. Posting a link like this, which simply shows the GitHub repo being taken down with a terms of service violation, with no further information, isn't helpful. There is no info: 1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was. 2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request 3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why this happened I'm guessing maybe there are some articles/forums/etc. that have some more context. If so, you should submit links to those instead. If not, and you just want to bring attention to this, submit a text submission to explain more details around what's going on.
- dmix 4y ago
  Only 1) would be really valuable here. Expecting a legitimate 2) explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive. Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd. If you have an actual better source then by all means, share it. I'm sure dang will consider swapping it.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    > explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive. There is not even proof/details it was a DMCA takedown request. Given the subject matter, of course wouldn't be surprised, but all you are going to get in the comments is pure speculation/blathering because there is simply no information about what's going on.
  - kaelinl 4y ago
    No, GitHub posts their received DMCA notices publicly and links to them from the takedown page. So 2) is a reasonable expectation and it isn't present here, suggesting the post title is pure speculation.
- LordDragonfang 4y ago
  From a mirrored/archived version of the README: >Collection of publicly available IPTV (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world.
srj 4y ago
If this was a DMCA takedown they need to file a counter notice, at which point I believe GitHub will reinstate them. Unless it's glaringly obvious that the original claim was abusive AFAIK the law doesn't give any leeway.
lysp 4y ago
Looks like there were a few take-downs. This repo was taken down last week: https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-pluto-tv-m3u-playlists-facilitate-piracy-on-a-massive-scale-230223/ https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-pluto-tv-m3u-playlists-facilita... Which contained links to pluto tv's channels.
f0ld 4y ago
I’ve just found out about this IPTV thing just last week and it’s down. Strangely feels like it’s my fault. They don’t want me to watch nice things. Enjoyed watching local tourism & attraction channel called BeachTV. It was comfy. It’s sad it’s gone now. Wish I knew about it some time ago,
- em-bee 4y ago
  the channels are still working. you can download the playlists from archive.org or another mirror of the repo (which i am sure exists somewhere)
mangatmodi 4y ago
How come a compilation of pubic streams is eligible for DMCA? Lets wait to get the DMCA notice to be available, it could be either of following 1. Somebody mistakenly/intentionally added a malicious stream. 2. Or DMCA notice is fraud. In my experience, it always the 2nd one. There are law firms and agencies randomly taking down stuff on internet with their faulty scripts and crawlers.
- matheusmoreira 4y ago
  People will DMCA anything. If some copyright monopolist gets offended by something on the internet it will get DMCA'd out of existence. Whether it's actually fair, just or even legal has no bearing whatsoever. They face no punishment for infringing other people's rights with frivolous claims because you'd have to prove they deliberately acted in bad faith and even that would require people to hire expensive lawyers to do it. In other words, they can leverage the justice system to arbitrarily silence others and then hide behind incompetentence and indiscrimination as an excuse.
mangatmodi 4y ago
Poor maintainers also added the legal section - https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv#legal https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.co... > No video files are stored in this repository. The repository simply contains user-submitted links to publicly available video stream URLs, which to the best of our knowledge have been intentionally made publicly by the copyright holders. If any links in these playlists infringe on your rights as a copyright holder, they may be removed by sending a pull request or opening an issue. However, note that we have no control over the destination of the link, and just removing the link from the playlist will not remove its contents from the web. Note that linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link, and thus this is not a valid reason to send a DMCA notice to GitHub. To remove this content from the web, you should contact the web host that's actually hosting the content (not GitHub, nor the maintainers of this repository).
rajishx 4y ago
First link found for a mirror: https://gitlab.com/MineCommander/iptv https://gitlab.com/MineCommander/iptv
1317 4y ago
well yeah, a list of dodgy tv streams, most of which aren't authorised by the channels, is bound to get taken down eventually

This discussion [1] on another repository of the same account seems to be related. Apparently "the first message on both repositories was DMCA takedown, then for some reason it was changed". [1] https://github.com/orgs/iptv-org/discussions/12 https://github.com/orgs/iptv-org/discussions/12

bm3719 4y ago

Any plausible (and not expensive) recourse in such situations? I've had a game server emulator project DMCA-ed previously, and my team's casual research couldn't come up with any solutions. Despite the takedown's text being factually incorrect (it was all rewritten code, not proprietary), there seemed to be no one to appeal to. Instead, we just moved it off GitHub with no further negative consequences. This resulted in some lost visibility and broken links though.

gnopgnip 4y ago
Did you submit a counterclaim?
ipaddr 4y ago
Where did you move to?
- bm3719 4y ago
  Self-hosted GitLab with a <project-name>.com domain.
toast0 4y ago
Not really. I don't think Github has any continuing service obligation to you, especially as a non-paying user. Taking Github to court to find out for sure is probably expensive. In theory, you could provide a counter notice, and Github says they will reenable repos after two weeks of a counter notice unless the claimed owner provides Github with notice of a lawsuit. But you may want to get legal advice before you do this. Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case.
- flangola7 4y ago
  It might be expensive but the false claimant would end up paying the legal bills
- ajsnigrutin 4y ago
  > Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case. Is there some "small claims" type of court where that would do that with minimal cost for the damaged person? I know way too many people who posted stuff on youtube that was either clear fair use or clearly not the copyrighted content, but youtubes automatic ID of music muted or removed their videos... If each of those could start a process for eg. $100, and got their $100 back + all the lost monetization (not a lot, but doesn't matter), companies would quickly change the way they operate.
  - Mindwipe 4y ago
    Proving fair use is legally complex, and to be blunt it is very possible you are incorrect - in any case, it is unlikely a lower court would judge on it at all given the complexity rather than referring it to a higher court (note this is a generalisation as parent doesn't identify the territory they are in, but it's a reasonable one). Also note that YouTube's ContentID process is not a DMCA process. It is a privately negotiated system that YouTube have come to a commercial arrangement with various rightsowners in order to minimise their legal liability. You have no come back against this, because they are not DMCA notices at the first stage to be improper. If you want a video hosting service that is going to have your back on this then you are probably going to need to use one that is more expensive than free, and quite possibly demonstrate that you have indemnity insurance.

than3 4y ago

Well, its tough to say what the situation actually is. 9 days with no response, is a surefire way to force any professional group off your host, and embroil yourself in bad press, and potential litigation. That said the group may not be that professional but they deserve a timely response. Can't say for sure but this sure looks and sounds more like potential antitrust violations/issues on the MS/Github side, than DMCA stuff. I mean the silence speaks absolute volumes, and companies that do this to free customers will do this to paying customers. There is no financial benefit to doing this and keeping quiet, only damage. Everyone in business knows the classic age-old wisdom, what you do in small things that don't matter, dictates how you handle big things when real risks are on the line. They haven't clarified or communicated with the maintainers aside from vague boilerplate which doesn't say or point to any reasonable knowledge of what their (customers) did wrong. So, just what everyone has been saying for years as opinion (but confirmed now). You can't use Github for anything where you need a professional response.

djbusby 4y ago
Would it be different if one is paying GitHub? It should be (I hope so). And same should be true at GitLab? Anyone tested it? Or am I paying for "nothing"?
- than3 4y ago
  It is doubtful, its age old wisdom for a reason. Most cases these days, you pay for the value add features (differentiation strategy) but the base ... (free) is in most cases monetized through alternate strategies. It is how they can cover costs to provide free to anyone that wants to sign up. Unless you have a written SLA that makes guarantees, with firm timetables, you most likely aren't getting what you think you bought.
- naikrovek 4y ago
  the DMCA does not care if you pay or not. the 10-day counterclaim response window is required by law.
  - 4y ago

lxe 4y ago

This is a collection of publicly available TV streams from all over the world. What could possibly be there that violates DMCA?

Scoundreller 4y ago
My thought is someone owning the rights to something in CountryB, but CountryA’s TV service is openly broadcasting it, which is fine if you’re in CountryA, but not elsewhere.
zinekeller 4y ago
Just checked a copy of repo (won't link here). A lot of cable-only channels that are definitely not offered to the public. It seems that the repository accepts any and all links, including links that definitely smells unauthorized (IP-only stream links that correspond to residential IPs in eastern Europe or south-east Asia, most legitimate free IPTV streams are hosted either in Akamai or IBM's whatever-they-call-Ustream-now).

boomboomsubban 4y ago

Github posts their DMCA claims, and I'm not seeing one for iptv https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=iptv&type= https://github.com/github/dmca/search?q=iptv&type=

adobrawy 4y ago
The DMCA repository was last updated 2 days ago, and this link likely appeared on HackerNews only a few hours after the IPTV repository was unpublished. Therefore, it appears that they simply have not yet published the DMCA notice.
- syrrim 4y ago
  It seems like they don't publish updates on weekends or US holidays. So if it is a dmca, we're likely to see it published in that repo tomorrow.
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  From other posts, the repository has been down for at least some of the past week. Long enough you'd expect any notice to be posted.
- arp242 4y ago
  No, you get a different message for that. For example: https://github.com/dts50/dts50.github.io https://github.com/dts50/dts50.github.io
justinclift 4y ago
Checking the most likely spot in that repo (eg without using the search feature), doesn't show any likely looking candidates either: https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2023/02 https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2023/02 That being said, the most recent dated one was 23rd Feb (last Thursday), so it does seem possible there might be a lag of a few days for stuff to show up. Not real sure though.

nonethewiser 4y ago

And what is iptv?

jrm4 4y ago
Came for this. I vaguely sort of got it before, let's Streisand this bad boy

2h 4y ago

I would recommend avoiding making contributions on GitHub. If you want an account for search and whatnot fine, but I had an account with hundreds of stars killed. They said it was because I created a second account. I said they could delete the second account, or I would do it. They refused to accept this suggestion and are keeping both banned. What's worse is they also kill every single issue, PR and comment you've ever posted. It's quite cruel and unnecessary.

than3 4y ago
When you are a platform as big as them, you can only do this so much before it crosses a line into antitrust. Biden's Administration just hired a ton of anti-trust lawyers. Unfortunately its a sad fact that the people making these decisions are the people who don't have the natural sense to not do this in the first place for the simple reason that the behavior drives negative sentiment and outcomes in the long run for little if any net benefit. They need to make Executives personally liable for stuff like this, otherwise they won't learn that they can't get away (it costs them something) as opposed to a business as usual slap on the wrist with the behavior baked into sales.
- huslage 4y ago
  This is about as far from antitrust as you can get. It’s fine to think you know things, but you don’t.
  - than3 4y ago
    > This is about as far from antitrust you can get. Not really, no. No DMCA notice is posted, its simply a vague you broke our ToS but we're not going to tell you how or why so you can correct it according to the mods, and then the non-response for 9 days. Github owns Microsoft, Microsoft has an interest in Content, IPTV like many other technologies can potentially be used by people and businesses for a wide variety of legal uses. If a business closes an account for cause, you say why, you allow access to the maintainers to migrate (if its not a legal issue), and you keep the account closed. If you don't say why, block access immediately, and don't provide a legitimate reason, you could be in violation of the Sherman act either directly, or more often via third-party liability when it comes to open source. I'm not a lawyer, but I know that much, its far from clear that its not antitrust, and on a more personal note, you should be more careful with those snipes. Its against the HN ToS after all.

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.co... Shortly before takedown

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

Note to article submitters: The HN audience aren't mind readers. Posting a link like this, which simply shows the GitHub repo being taken down with a terms of service violation, with no further information, isn't helpful. There is no info: 1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was. 2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request 3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why this happened I'm guessing maybe there are some articles/forums/etc. that have some more context. If so, you should submit links to those instead. If not, and you just want to bring attention to this, submit a text submission to explain more details around what's going on.

dmix 4y ago
Only 1) would be really valuable here. Expecting a legitimate 2) explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive. Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd. If you have an actual better source then by all means, share it. I'm sure dang will consider swapping it.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  > explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive. There is not even proof/details it was a DMCA takedown request. Given the subject matter, of course wouldn't be surprised, but all you are going to get in the comments is pure speculation/blathering because there is simply no information about what's going on.
- kaelinl 4y ago
  No, GitHub posts their received DMCA notices publicly and links to them from the takedown page. So 2) is a reasonable expectation and it isn't present here, suggesting the post title is pure speculation.
LordDragonfang 4y ago
From a mirrored/archived version of the README: >Collection of publicly available IPTV (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world.

srj 4y ago

If this was a DMCA takedown they need to file a counter notice, at which point I believe GitHub will reinstate them. Unless it's glaringly obvious that the original claim was abusive AFAIK the law doesn't give any leeway.

lysp 4y ago

Looks like there were a few take-downs. This repo was taken down last week: https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-pluto-tv-m3u-playlists-facilitate-piracy-on-a-massive-scale-230223/ https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-pluto-tv-m3u-playlists-facilita... Which contained links to pluto tv's channels.

f0ld 4y ago

I’ve just found out about this IPTV thing just last week and it’s down. Strangely feels like it’s my fault. They don’t want me to watch nice things. Enjoyed watching local tourism & attraction channel called BeachTV. It was comfy. It’s sad it’s gone now. Wish I knew about it some time ago,

em-bee 4y ago
the channels are still working. you can download the playlists from archive.org or another mirror of the repo (which i am sure exists somewhere)

mangatmodi 4y ago

How come a compilation of pubic streams is eligible for DMCA? Lets wait to get the DMCA notice to be available, it could be either of following 1. Somebody mistakenly/intentionally added a malicious stream. 2. Or DMCA notice is fraud. In my experience, it always the 2nd one. There are law firms and agencies randomly taking down stuff on internet with their faulty scripts and crawlers.

matheusmoreira 4y ago
People will DMCA anything. If some copyright monopolist gets offended by something on the internet it will get DMCA'd out of existence. Whether it's actually fair, just or even legal has no bearing whatsoever. They face no punishment for infringing other people's rights with frivolous claims because you'd have to prove they deliberately acted in bad faith and even that would require people to hire expensive lawyers to do it. In other words, they can leverage the justice system to arbitrarily silence others and then hide behind incompetentence and indiscrimination as an excuse.

mangatmodi 4y ago

Poor maintainers also added the legal section - https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv#legal https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.co... > No video files are stored in this repository. The repository simply contains user-submitted links to publicly available video stream URLs, which to the best of our knowledge have been intentionally made publicly by the copyright holders. If any links in these playlists infringe on your rights as a copyright holder, they may be removed by sending a pull request or opening an issue. However, note that we have no control over the destination of the link, and just removing the link from the playlist will not remove its contents from the web. Note that linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link, and thus this is not a valid reason to send a DMCA notice to GitHub. To remove this content from the web, you should contact the web host that's actually hosting the content (not GitHub, nor the maintainers of this repository).

rajishx 4y ago

First link found for a mirror: https://gitlab.com/MineCommander/iptv https://gitlab.com/MineCommander/iptv

1317 4y ago

well yeah, a list of dodgy tv streams, most of which aren't authorised by the channels, is bound to get taken down eventually