4 ms·

> The DMCA takedown provision doesn't apply If you mean the notice-and-takedown system in Section 512 of the DMCA you're correct, that isn't the relevant secti

> The DMCA takedown provision doesn't apply If you mean the notice-and-takedown system in Section 512 of the DMCA you're correct, that isn't the relevant section of the DMCA. But if this software is an anti-circumvention technology than it's illegal for GitHub to host it under a different section (see my citation you replied to). So GitHub accepts other kinds of takedown requests, including anti-circumvention takedowns, and acts on them if it determines that would be appropriate [1]. > Format shifting Minecraft to the web has value beyond whatever authentication mechanisms are lost. I don't know enough to predict how a court would rule on that. But I'm pretty sure the necessary analysis is much much more complicated. [1] https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-policies/dmca-takedown-policy#c-what-about-circumvention-claims https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... (added in edit)

mlyle 4y ago
Note that because this is not required for safe harbor, Github's policy in theory is much more forgiving of developers: * In cases where we are unable to determine whether a claim is valid, we will err on the side of the developer, and leave the content up. * In other words, we will not disable a repository based on a claim of circumvention technology without attempting to contact a repository owner to give them a chance to respond or make changes first. Etc, etc. Note Github in this case explicitly said "GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim"
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Yes. At the top of this thread I said the DMCA bans anti-circumvention tech. You've made a lot of good points, but I don't get why you're arguing with me. None of that contradicts me.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    Because while I may not disagree about all of the facts, I disagree about some key ones. I don't think it's a valid response to my rebuttal that Eaglercraft is fundamentally a "pirate version" of Minecraft. I don't think it's a circumvention device. Github also seems to not think that Eaglercraft qualifies as a circumvention device. Finally, while Github hosting something that is a circumvention device might qualify as "trafficking", a provider's exact scope of responsibility to avoid hosting circumvention devices is not well defined or tested.

mlyle 4y ago

Note that because this is not required for safe harbor, Github's policy in theory is much more forgiving of developers: * In cases where we are unable to determine whether a claim is valid, we will err on the side of the developer, and leave the content up. * In other words, we will not disable a repository based on a claim of circumvention technology without attempting to contact a repository owner to give them a chance to respond or make changes first. Etc, etc. Note Github in this case explicitly said "GitHub did not find sufficient information to determine a valid anti-circumvention claim"

iudqnolq 4y ago
Yes. At the top of this thread I said the DMCA bans anti-circumvention tech. You've made a lot of good points, but I don't get why you're arguing with me. None of that contradicts me.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Because while I may not disagree about all of the facts, I disagree about some key ones. I don't think it's a valid response to my rebuttal that Eaglercraft is fundamentally a "pirate version" of Minecraft. I don't think it's a circumvention device. Github also seems to not think that Eaglercraft qualifies as a circumvention device. Finally, while Github hosting something that is a circumvention device might qualify as "trafficking", a provider's exact scope of responsibility to avoid hosting circumvention devices is not well defined or tested.