4 ms·

They don't even observe DMCA, and they still did this?

by oliverpk 3y ago

ffpip 3y ago
GitLab is a US company. It's cannot choose to not "observe" DMCA. If they get a notice they have to take it down
- nicce 3y ago
  Who validates the ”correctness” or ”validity” of the DMCA notice?
  - madaxe_again 3y ago
    Ex post facto. Takedown happens first, then you can appeal - but generally hosts err on the side of caution. It’s a blunt force instrument. Always was. Fun side effect is that you can use it as a blunt force instrument, too - don’t like what someone is saying online? DMCA. Competitor champing at your heels? DMCA. I still think the best way to kill it is mass abuse of the process.
  - indeyets 3y ago
    No one is supposed to. It goes like this: 1. DMCA request (take them down, they use our copyrighted stuff!), 2. opposition (no, we do not agree! Do not take us down), 3. the process with lawyers and judges starts An expectation is that “wrongdoers” just do not bother to oppose and everything works faster. Then there are corporate policies which make this weirder (like YouTube who says: “if people send too many dmca request towards you, we chose not to see you as a customer”. But this has nothing to do with law)
    - nicce 3y ago
      Are the any penalties if the DMCA request was invalid? Just pay the legal fees?
      - bongobingo1 3y ago
        There are supposed to be yes. (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f (scroll up slightly as the anchor-link places the top under the navbar) Of course its on the proverbial me to prove that they're at fault and I dont have the money or time ... I imagine one day they will kick the wrong horse though and someone will sue the company for it & GH/GL/whoever for not giving fair recourse or something.
        0xedd 3y ago
        Sure, and one day the aliens will stop treating us like zoo animals. This is like EULAs. Only corporations have the time and money to utilize them in their favor. In other words, we are not equal in the eyes of the law.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

They don't even observe DMCA, and they still did this?

ffpip 3y ago

GitLab is a US company. It's cannot choose to not "observe" DMCA. If they get a notice they have to take it down

nicce 3y ago
Who validates the ”correctness” or ”validity” of the DMCA notice?
- madaxe_again 3y ago
  Ex post facto. Takedown happens first, then you can appeal - but generally hosts err on the side of caution. It’s a blunt force instrument. Always was. Fun side effect is that you can use it as a blunt force instrument, too - don’t like what someone is saying online? DMCA. Competitor champing at your heels? DMCA. I still think the best way to kill it is mass abuse of the process.
- indeyets 3y ago
  No one is supposed to. It goes like this: 1. DMCA request (take them down, they use our copyrighted stuff!), 2. opposition (no, we do not agree! Do not take us down), 3. the process with lawyers and judges starts An expectation is that “wrongdoers” just do not bother to oppose and everything works faster. Then there are corporate policies which make this weirder (like YouTube who says: “if people send too many dmca request towards you, we chose not to see you as a customer”. But this has nothing to do with law)
  - nicce 3y ago
    Are the any penalties if the DMCA request was invalid? Just pay the legal fees?
    - bongobingo1 3y ago
      There are supposed to be yes. (f) Misrepresentations.—Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents under this section— (1) that material or activity is infringing, or (2) that material or activity was removed or disabled by mistake or misidentification, shall be liable for any damages, including costs and attorneys’ fees, incurred by the alleged infringer, by any copyright owner or copyright owner’s authorized licensee, or by a service provider, who is injured by such misrepresentation, as the result of the service provider relying upon such misrepresentation in removing or disabling access to the material or activity claimed to be infringing, or in replacing the removed material or ceasing to disable access to it. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512#f (scroll up slightly as the anchor-link places the top under the navbar) Of course its on the proverbial me to prove that they're at fault and I dont have the money or time ... I imagine one day they will kick the wrong horse though and someone will sue the company for it & GH/GL/whoever for not giving fair recourse or something.
      - 0xedd 3y ago
        Sure, and one day the aliens will stop treating us like zoo animals. This is like EULAs. Only corporations have the time and money to utilize them in their favor. In other words, we are not equal in the eyes of the law.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]