6 ms·

Is it against GitHub's TOS? I have a web app, http://www.moviemagnet.net http://www.moviemagnet.net, that's a movie torrent aggregator that I was going to throw

Is it against GitHub's TOS? I have a web app, http://www.moviemagnet.net http://www.moviemagnet.net, that's a movie torrent aggregator that I was going to throw up on GitHub after I wrote some integration tests. It would be shocking to me that they would remove the repo since they weren't technically serving torrents.

k-mcgrady 13y ago
>> "It would be shocking to me that they would remove the repo since they weren't technically serving torrents." I don't think it matters if they're serving torrents or not. The movie industry will likely sue them anyway and GitHub probably doesn't want to be involved in any way.
- daSupreme 13y ago
  If they removed the tracker file then nothing can be wrong. It's not illegal to stream torrents. Just to stream copyrighted torrents. I will move away from github if this is true! First the sexism and now this!
  - frandroid 13y ago
    The point was that the MPAA can make life very expensive for GitHub if even if they don't have legal footing.
maxerickson 13y ago
The TOS don't make any promises: GitHub does not pre-screen Content, but GitHub and its designee have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service. and We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Service.
- jherdman 13y ago
  > "...and its designee..." Can someone explain to me whom this portion of the clause refers to?
  - lmm 13y ago
    Anyone who Github has said it does ("designated").
  - saraid216 13y ago
    IANAL, but I would guess this is effectively to allow non-employees like contractors to do the removal legally.
- cantbecool 13y ago
  That would explain it. It's remarkable how ambiguous TOSs in general are. I can see from a business perspective how Github was probably pressured from outside source, MPAA, to remove the application that could be used as a conduit to illegally download magnet links. This is such a slippery slope though...
  - maxerickson 13y ago
    I would say the terms are one sided (at least on this issue). I don't think they are ambiguous. I don't think it is really a slippery slope either, there would be a bunch of new law needed to make it so that offering a platform for publication carried the obligation to publish things (a lot of it focused on protecting the service provider from liability).
  - otikik 13y ago
    This particular TOS part is not ambiguous. It means "we can delete anything".
- Fuxy 13y ago
  Anything can be considered offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable by some people how do you define such subjective views. There Terms of service are very vague.
zcam 13y ago
Seems super similar (not to say a clone) to movies.io

k-mcgrady 13y ago

>> "It would be shocking to me that they would remove the repo since they weren't technically serving torrents." I don't think it matters if they're serving torrents or not. The movie industry will likely sue them anyway and GitHub probably doesn't want to be involved in any way.

daSupreme 13y ago
If they removed the tracker file then nothing can be wrong. It's not illegal to stream torrents. Just to stream copyrighted torrents. I will move away from github if this is true! First the sexism and now this!
- frandroid 13y ago
  The point was that the MPAA can make life very expensive for GitHub if even if they don't have legal footing.

maxerickson 13y ago

The TOS don't make any promises: GitHub does not pre-screen Content, but GitHub and its designee have the right (but not the obligation) in their sole discretion to refuse or remove any Content that is available via the Service. and We may, but have no obligation to, remove Content and Accounts containing Content that we determine in our sole discretion are unlawful, offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable or violates any party's intellectual property or these Terms of Service.

jherdman 13y ago
> "...and its designee..." Can someone explain to me whom this portion of the clause refers to?
- lmm 13y ago
  Anyone who Github has said it does ("designated").
- saraid216 13y ago
  IANAL, but I would guess this is effectively to allow non-employees like contractors to do the removal legally.
cantbecool 13y ago
That would explain it. It's remarkable how ambiguous TOSs in general are. I can see from a business perspective how Github was probably pressured from outside source, MPAA, to remove the application that could be used as a conduit to illegally download magnet links. This is such a slippery slope though...
- maxerickson 13y ago
  I would say the terms are one sided (at least on this issue). I don't think they are ambiguous. I don't think it is really a slippery slope either, there would be a bunch of new law needed to make it so that offering a platform for publication carried the obligation to publish things (a lot of it focused on protecting the service provider from liability).
- otikik 13y ago
  This particular TOS part is not ambiguous. It means "we can delete anything".
Fuxy 13y ago
Anything can be considered offensive, threatening, libelous, defamatory, pornographic, obscene or otherwise objectionable by some people how do you define such subjective views. There Terms of service are very vague.

zcam 13y ago

Seems super similar (not to say a clone) to movies.io