2 ms·
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 dete
by 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 agoYes. 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 agoBecause 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.