6 ms·
Why is this legally allowed? Do they not have to prove that a hash belongs to copyrighted material? Also how is a hash of something equal to being the thing? Do
by botanical 3y ago
Why is this legally allowed? Do they not have to prove that a hash belongs to copyrighted material? Also how is a hash of something equal to being the thing? Do copyrighted laws have specific sub-laws when it comes to digital media?
- ugjka 3y agoDMCA take down notices can be abused and there is no upshot for github to fight this in court, especially if the material are torrent links not any kind of software project
- newaccount74 3y agoGithub has no reason to keep hosting the repos. It's obvious that their only purpose is to facilitate piracy. Github is in the code hosting business, not the movie pirating business.
- PartiallyTyped 3y agoWhat’s stopping me from doing the same but rot13’ing the magnet link?
- shuntress 3y agoProbably a combination of motive and ability.
- niea_11 3y agoThe files in the repo are a list of magnet URIs which contain in this case the hash plus the title of the content. Something like this : magnet:?xt=urn:btih:BSXYFTH5VCJLB32DYS2FPTJUB2IVNKUS&dn=Fedora-Astronomy_KDE-Live-x86_64-37
- aaron695 3y ago[dead]
- viraptor 3y agoMost of this is irrelevant. The process is (more or less, read up on DMCA for details): someone sends notice, GH as a provider takes down content until counterclaim from the repo owner, then the 2 parties can battle it in court. I doubt any repo owner will want to challenge anything here. Unless they have EFF behind them trying to prove a point or something like that.
- IAmGraydon 3y agoSo basically, guilty until proven innocent.
- realitythreek 3y agoThis isn’t a criminal case so the process doesn’t involve guilt. It actually allows everyone to stay out of court. Unless the copyright holder then sues the uploader.
- rhino369 3y agoNot complying with DMCA doesn’t directly get into legal trouble. It’s not a crime and doesn’t create (itself) any civil liability. What it does do is forfeit a safe harbor defense against copyright infringement liability. Basically, as long as you comply with take down requests, you can’t be sued for copyright infringement unless you knew about it. It’s part of a quid pro quo with online services that publish user content. Other publishers are liable for what they publish even if they didn’t know about it. Without the DMCA, Google would be liable for all the piracy that happens on the site.
- sp332 3y agoBut how can the repo owner do that if the complainant is anonymous?
- viraptor 3y agoThe counterclaim is sent to the provider, so in this case GitHub. Also the original claim was not anonymous. The source just wasn't made public. See https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/06/2023-06-29-rarbg.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/06/2023-06-2...
- retrac 3y agoGithub is likely to be actively cooperating. They normally seek to remove such content; it's against the terms of service.
- stjohnswarts 3y agoGenerally they take it down and -you- have to prove it's not protected under DMCA rules. They settle on the side that means they are least likely to be sued.
- tinus_hn 3y agoIf the hash in practice gives users the ability to download the content, yes.
- tgsovlerkhgsel 3y agoHas there been a clear decision whether links are covered by the DMCA/copyright law or not? If there has been a clear decision that they're not, counter-notifications could be effective.