6 ms·

"Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that fin

by jonoc 3y ago

"Even if I believe that what I'm doing is morally correct and legally protected, legal processes still have a financial cost. I can't afford to take on that financial risk for something that I do in my spare time to help others." - this is very logical and exactly what I would have done but it still makes me very sad that this is the way the world works right now :(

pdonis 3y ago
This seems like a case where an organization like the EFF could help. Does anyone know if they are aware of this specific incident?
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  The EFF would still need a defendant to defend. It sounds like that person is not interested in pursuing a legal battle, so we have already met the end of this road.
  - happytoexplain 3y ago
    I see this attitude a lot where legal is involved (which is a lot of places). It's a very peculiar sort of "if this then that" which seems to subvert normal human communication. E.g. in this case, a standard human train of thought would be that, because one of the reasons given for not pursuing it is funding, the EFF might offer to fund this person, who, circumstances now being different, might then agree to be the defendant. Now maybe there is a problem with that, but my point is that your response seems to choose not to acknowledge it. I don't think it's malicious - I think there is just something about the way legal works that trains people to think and speak in this slightly non-human way.
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      In my perspective, it's less about the presentation, and more about the motivations involved. If the EFF is motivated to reach out to the original DMCA recipient, then they could definitely present this avenue. That leads us to the next question, is the original DMCA recipient interested in pursuing a (now funded) defense? If not, are they interested in handing it off to someone else? Who? Would that person be an effective defendant? Really, what we are doing here is speculating on one person's level of disinterest in pursuing the legal defense of their work.
      - tough 3y ago
        What about another person willing to continue with a fork? What about a DAO specifically built for that purpose exclusively? Just looking how to fuck back those lawyers
        thomastjeffery 3y ago
        I would love to see that happen. I also, unfortunately, doubt it will.
        tough 3y ago
        Seems it would require to fork the whole home assistant repo https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomment-1761718315 https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomm...
  - andix 3y ago
    They could transfer the ownership of the code to someone else. This person/entity could put it back up and wait for Mazda attacking them.
    - evan_ 3y ago
      Wouldn't Mazda then go after both parties?
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        The tool Mazda is using is DMCA. That applies explicitly to whomever is hosting the content. More specifically, it applies to whomever Mazda sends the DMCA notice to.
      - andix 3y ago
        Usually you can't go after people for creating content, even if it's a copyright violation. They also can't "uncreate" it, they can't delete the concepts from their brain. You can only stop them from publishing/selling it. In this case the code was on GitHub before, so they wouldn't even need to give the code to the new target entity, this entity could just copy it from an undisclosed person who has a copy.
    - oh_sigh 3y ago
      Transfer of ownership isn't even required, since it was open source code hosted on github. All someone needs to do is re-host the files, and wait for the DMCA notice to push back on it.
      - andix 3y ago
        True. It should also be possible to maintain it outside of the US, where the DMCA doesn't apply. In some European countries Mazda probably wouldn't have a lot of options to take it down.
  - pdonis 3y ago
    They could reach out to him and offer to pay his legal expenses. They could even offer the services of lawyers they are familiar with. IIRC they have done that in similar cases in the past.
Dalewyn 3y ago
As President Andrew Jackson once said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As it turns out, you need both the piece of paper underwriting your rights and the force necessary to exercise them.
- cooper_ganglia 3y ago
  My freedom and financial future aren't the kinds of things I'd like to test their enforcement with. We need laws that prevent this type of bullying behavior.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    You're back to square one: You have to exercise the laws preventing that bullying. Lines of ink on plant fiber by themselves have never stopped anyone.
    - shiroiuma 3y ago
      So why don't you do this then? The author doesn't have to be the one to take the risk: YOU can do it yourself! Just get a copy of the code and post it up on your own account, under your own name.
all2 3y ago
The process is the punishment. Average Joe cannot go toe-to-toe in the legal system as it stands right now. The one with the most money nearly always wins, and - as in this case - the threat of financially ruinous litigation is enough.
- ronsor 3y ago
  And the solution is to nerf copyright into the dirt like you'd nerf an overpowered item in a game.
  - AceJohnny2 3y ago
    Are you aware that copyright law is the foundation of FOSS licenses?
    - jimnotgym 3y ago
      You wouldn't need it if copyright didn't exist in the first place
      - AceJohnny2 3y ago
        Of course you would. For example, thanks to copyright law, Linksys was forced to share their Linux customizations to run on router hardware, which led to the creation of the OpenWRT project. Without copyright law, any actor can take your open system and close it.
        Filligree 3y ago
        A lot of people are fine with that. Look at everyone who uses the BSD or MIT license.
        AceJohnny2 3y ago
        The fact that they have the option to choose it is different than it being the only possibility.
throw_a_grenade 3y ago
He should have added "I believe buying Mazda was a mistake and I encourage everyone to avoid this brand until they get their Legal together". They need to be deterred. They should know that every time they do this, people will start recommending their competition.
akira2501 3y ago
The DMCA has been a net negative for America. It didn't actually afford any of the intended protections to the industries that bought it and it has destroyed the concept of "ownership" in an increasingly digital world.
- Waterluvian 3y ago
  And America didn’t just harm itself with DMCA. We all suffer from this mistake.
alphazard 3y ago
I think we've made a mistake by linking our real world identities to the software we write. If the author released this under a pseudonym, and hosted the git servers in a country without strong copyright enforcement, there's very little Mazda could do to take it down. It's too late for that now since Mazda knows who he really is.
- shiroiuma 3y ago
  It's not too late for that; the author just doesn't want to be bothered. If he really wanted to, he could move the code to that other country, and put it up under a pseudonym. If anyone asks, he can just claim he doesn't know who that person is, and he has nothing to do with it: how can they disprove him without literally spying on him? The code is open-source: literally anyone could have made a fork of the repo while it was still up, and then posted it somewhere else.
  - alphazard 3y ago
    It's too late for that to be a realistic defense. The Mazda legal team already has a target that they can go after for any further developments with the source code. This post acknowledges that he received the cease and desist letter. The issue isn't just whether you win in court, it's also how much of your time and money is wasted fighting a corporate legal operation. Arguably, a random person publishing the source code would create additional problems for him. An effective defense has to protect your time and money. One such defense is to never let your real identity be plucked from obscurity and fixated on by a legal team.
prepend 3y ago
I wish GitHub would do more to protect developers from this bullshit. I know they aren’t required to, but I remember the olden days when more companies would fight dmca requests. But I suppose they were much less common then. The EFF might help, but even expecting individuals to appeal to the EFF is probably too much work and too much risk. I’d like to see GitHub partner with EFF to have first look at these requests and choose to fight ones that seem invalid. I’d donate to they cause.
- maxerickson 3y ago
  What's it look like? The next step to fight this is for the user of the Github service to file a counter notice and wait to see if Mazda files a copyright infringement lawsuit against them. It probably doesn't make sense for Github to indemnify them, and short of that, there's not really a lot of convincing they can do if someone isn't interested in engaging in litigation with some huge company.
  - prepend 3y ago
    They could auto file a counter notice. They could provide free legal council to help the user file. They could route to EFF or others to file counter notices. They could even sue for damages from false claims since API can’t be copyrighted. There’s tons they could do. Microsoft has immense resources and far greater than Mazda.
    - maxerickson 3y ago
      They don't have standing to auto file a counter notice. And then if someone accidentally publishes something copyrighted to github, they probably don't want to go through a lawsuit. I looked at the code some, there are some app secrets stored and used, so they probably have at least a thin claim.
      - prepend 3y ago
        They can certainly evaluate the request and deem it spurious, as long as they are willing to defend their decision. They can also autogenerate the counter claim so an author just needs to click “dispute.” I’m sure there are lots of valid dmca complaints against GitHub repos, like any site that allows hosting random files. But I think if GitHub wants to encourage programming, they need to invest and be more proactive in supporting programmers from people like the jerk lawyer at Mazda (or probably some stupid “ip protection” consultant) who filed this spurious seeming complaint.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dtgriscom 3y ago
Right or wrong, the legal system (in the US and elsewhere) is to be feared and avoided. I've served jury duty several times in the US, and each time it looked like we might be empaneled, the defendant settled with the DA. I've no idea if they were actually guilty of what they were accused of, but in any case they decided that being deemed guilty was less onerous than going through (and paying for counsel in) a jury trial.
j1elo 3y ago
> this is very logical and exactly what I would have done I made a comment regarding this, before realizing yours, so I'm kinda repeating myself here, but it's something that piques my curiosity: What would stop you from just continuing in a different repo (even different host like Gitee), with a pseudonymous, and claim that you have no idea who's that mysterious person that forked and continued working on the project?

by jonoc 3y ago

pdonis 3y ago

This seems like a case where an organization like the EFF could help. Does anyone know if they are aware of this specific incident?

thomastjeffery 3y ago
The EFF would still need a defendant to defend. It sounds like that person is not interested in pursuing a legal battle, so we have already met the end of this road.
- happytoexplain 3y ago
  I see this attitude a lot where legal is involved (which is a lot of places). It's a very peculiar sort of "if this then that" which seems to subvert normal human communication. E.g. in this case, a standard human train of thought would be that, because one of the reasons given for not pursuing it is funding, the EFF might offer to fund this person, who, circumstances now being different, might then agree to be the defendant. Now maybe there is a problem with that, but my point is that your response seems to choose not to acknowledge it. I don't think it's malicious - I think there is just something about the way legal works that trains people to think and speak in this slightly non-human way.
  - thomastjeffery 3y ago
    In my perspective, it's less about the presentation, and more about the motivations involved. If the EFF is motivated to reach out to the original DMCA recipient, then they could definitely present this avenue. That leads us to the next question, is the original DMCA recipient interested in pursuing a (now funded) defense? If not, are they interested in handing it off to someone else? Who? Would that person be an effective defendant? Really, what we are doing here is speculating on one person's level of disinterest in pursuing the legal defense of their work.
    - tough 3y ago
      What about another person willing to continue with a fork? What about a DAO specifically built for that purpose exclusively? Just looking how to fuck back those lawyers
      - thomastjeffery 3y ago
        I would love to see that happen. I also, unfortunately, doubt it will.
        tough 3y ago
        Seems it would require to fork the whole home assistant repo https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomment-1761718315 https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomm...
- andix 3y ago
  They could transfer the ownership of the code to someone else. This person/entity could put it back up and wait for Mazda attacking them.
  - evan_ 3y ago
    Wouldn't Mazda then go after both parties?
    - thomastjeffery 3y ago
      The tool Mazda is using is DMCA. That applies explicitly to whomever is hosting the content. More specifically, it applies to whomever Mazda sends the DMCA notice to.
    - andix 3y ago
      Usually you can't go after people for creating content, even if it's a copyright violation. They also can't "uncreate" it, they can't delete the concepts from their brain. You can only stop them from publishing/selling it. In this case the code was on GitHub before, so they wouldn't even need to give the code to the new target entity, this entity could just copy it from an undisclosed person who has a copy.
  - oh_sigh 3y ago
    Transfer of ownership isn't even required, since it was open source code hosted on github. All someone needs to do is re-host the files, and wait for the DMCA notice to push back on it.
    - andix 3y ago
      True. It should also be possible to maintain it outside of the US, where the DMCA doesn't apply. In some European countries Mazda probably wouldn't have a lot of options to take it down.
- pdonis 3y ago
  They could reach out to him and offer to pay his legal expenses. They could even offer the services of lawyers they are familiar with. IIRC they have done that in similar cases in the past.

Dalewyn 3y ago

As President Andrew Jackson once said, "John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it." As it turns out, you need both the piece of paper underwriting your rights and the force necessary to exercise them.

cooper_ganglia 3y ago
My freedom and financial future aren't the kinds of things I'd like to test their enforcement with. We need laws that prevent this type of bullying behavior.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  You're back to square one: You have to exercise the laws preventing that bullying. Lines of ink on plant fiber by themselves have never stopped anyone.
  - shiroiuma 3y ago
    So why don't you do this then? The author doesn't have to be the one to take the risk: YOU can do it yourself! Just get a copy of the code and post it up on your own account, under your own name.

all2 3y ago

The process is the punishment. Average Joe cannot go toe-to-toe in the legal system as it stands right now. The one with the most money nearly always wins, and - as in this case - the threat of financially ruinous litigation is enough.

ronsor 3y ago
And the solution is to nerf copyright into the dirt like you'd nerf an overpowered item in a game.
- AceJohnny2 3y ago
  Are you aware that copyright law is the foundation of FOSS licenses?
  - jimnotgym 3y ago
    You wouldn't need it if copyright didn't exist in the first place
    - AceJohnny2 3y ago
      Of course you would. For example, thanks to copyright law, Linksys was forced to share their Linux customizations to run on router hardware, which led to the creation of the OpenWRT project. Without copyright law, any actor can take your open system and close it.
      - Filligree 3y ago
        A lot of people are fine with that. Look at everyone who uses the BSD or MIT license.
        AceJohnny2 3y ago
        The fact that they have the option to choose it is different than it being the only possibility.

throw_a_grenade 3y ago

He should have added "I believe buying Mazda was a mistake and I encourage everyone to avoid this brand until they get their Legal together". They need to be deterred. They should know that every time they do this, people will start recommending their competition.

akira2501 3y ago

The DMCA has been a net negative for America. It didn't actually afford any of the intended protections to the industries that bought it and it has destroyed the concept of "ownership" in an increasingly digital world.

Waterluvian 3y ago
And America didn’t just harm itself with DMCA. We all suffer from this mistake.

alphazard 3y ago

I think we've made a mistake by linking our real world identities to the software we write. If the author released this under a pseudonym, and hosted the git servers in a country without strong copyright enforcement, there's very little Mazda could do to take it down. It's too late for that now since Mazda knows who he really is.

shiroiuma 3y ago
It's not too late for that; the author just doesn't want to be bothered. If he really wanted to, he could move the code to that other country, and put it up under a pseudonym. If anyone asks, he can just claim he doesn't know who that person is, and he has nothing to do with it: how can they disprove him without literally spying on him? The code is open-source: literally anyone could have made a fork of the repo while it was still up, and then posted it somewhere else.
- alphazard 3y ago
  It's too late for that to be a realistic defense. The Mazda legal team already has a target that they can go after for any further developments with the source code. This post acknowledges that he received the cease and desist letter. The issue isn't just whether you win in court, it's also how much of your time and money is wasted fighting a corporate legal operation. Arguably, a random person publishing the source code would create additional problems for him. An effective defense has to protect your time and money. One such defense is to never let your real identity be plucked from obscurity and fixated on by a legal team.

prepend 3y ago

I wish GitHub would do more to protect developers from this bullshit. I know they aren’t required to, but I remember the olden days when more companies would fight dmca requests. But I suppose they were much less common then. The EFF might help, but even expecting individuals to appeal to the EFF is probably too much work and too much risk. I’d like to see GitHub partner with EFF to have first look at these requests and choose to fight ones that seem invalid. I’d donate to they cause.

maxerickson 3y ago
What's it look like? The next step to fight this is for the user of the Github service to file a counter notice and wait to see if Mazda files a copyright infringement lawsuit against them. It probably doesn't make sense for Github to indemnify them, and short of that, there's not really a lot of convincing they can do if someone isn't interested in engaging in litigation with some huge company.
- prepend 3y ago
  They could auto file a counter notice. They could provide free legal council to help the user file. They could route to EFF or others to file counter notices. They could even sue for damages from false claims since API can’t be copyrighted. There’s tons they could do. Microsoft has immense resources and far greater than Mazda.
  - maxerickson 3y ago
    They don't have standing to auto file a counter notice. And then if someone accidentally publishes something copyrighted to github, they probably don't want to go through a lawsuit. I looked at the code some, there are some app secrets stored and used, so they probably have at least a thin claim.
    - prepend 3y ago
      They can certainly evaluate the request and deem it spurious, as long as they are willing to defend their decision. They can also autogenerate the counter claim so an author just needs to click “dispute.” I’m sure there are lots of valid dmca complaints against GitHub repos, like any site that allows hosting random files. But I think if GitHub wants to encourage programming, they need to invest and be more proactive in supporting programmers from people like the jerk lawyer at Mazda (or probably some stupid “ip protection” consultant) who filed this spurious seeming complaint.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dtgriscom 3y ago

Right or wrong, the legal system (in the US and elsewhere) is to be feared and avoided. I've served jury duty several times in the US, and each time it looked like we might be empaneled, the defendant settled with the DA. I've no idea if they were actually guilty of what they were accused of, but in any case they decided that being deemed guilty was less onerous than going through (and paying for counsel in) a jury trial.

j1elo 3y ago

> this is very logical and exactly what I would have done I made a comment regarding this, before realizing yours, so I'm kinda repeating myself here, but it's something that piques my curiosity: What would stop you from just continuing in a different repo (even different host like Gitee), with a pseudonymous, and claim that you have no idea who's that mysterious person that forked and continued working on the project?