3 ms·
I’m trying to understand the notice and the article and it seems like Plex is alleging a general infringement on the Plex Server rather than suggesting the vagu
by sakjur 3y ago
I’m trying to understand the notice and the article and it seems like Plex is alleging a general infringement on the Plex Server rather than suggesting the vague explanation given in the article? (Though the language is quite oddly phrased, so Torrentfreak’s interpretation also makes sense)
In that case, I wonder if they’re trying to claim API copyright or if there’s something more substantial behind it. There’s also the trademark matter and IANAL, but I don’t think that’d go through DMCA requests?
- madaxe_again 3y agoIt goes like this: XBMC forks, becomes Plex Plex devs decide to charge membership. Requires a payment processor. Payment processors get very twitchy around anything that could involve piracy So Plex take an aggressive anti-piracy stance, despite it being the primary use case for their software. In this case an unauthorised use takedown.
- sakjur 3y agoI’m with you thus far, but I’m trying to parse the notice to see why GitHub is even complying (see https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/03/2024-03-11-plex.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/03/2024-03-1... ) and I think Torrentfreak got it wrong. I think they’re trying to claim infringement on Plex Server, but the English in the takedown notice is barely legible (and it feels like a mixup between trademarks and copyright), to the point that I find GitHub’s compliance odd.
- madaxe_again 3y agoAs a rule it’s “comply first, ask questions later” - you can end up culpable for damages if you don’t immediately take down.
- gardnr 3y ago> We have found infringing material in your website which indeed is OTHER 'Plex Server'. It would appear Plex are claiming there was 'Plex Server' in the repo.