5 ms·

Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.

by maddev 12y ago

eli 12y ago
If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. If the author of repository feels the notice is unfair, they could send a Counter Notification which would obligate Github to put the repository back online (and the MPAA's next step would have to be a lawsuit).
- maddev 12y ago
  > If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. They shouldn't want safe harbor then.
  - anonymousab 12y ago
    Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth? It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible.
    - maddev 12y ago
      > It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible. Watching a little bit of youtube in say e.g. Germany might change your mind. Right now the opposite is the case, Google is acting as an illegal minion who censors arbitrary videos by order of anyone who has some cash.
  - akerl_ 12y ago
    Not having safe harbor would mean that if anybody posted content to GitHub that did violate copyright, GitHub would be liable and would end up having to fight in court. Even if they won, they would be expending massive amounts of money and effort fighting copyright battles. These battles wouldn't even be fought "on behalf of their users", because the entities taking them to court would also be taking the end users to court.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Without safe harbour GitHub could be sued for any copyright infringment that any of their millions (?) of users do. It would be a terrible business decision to give up safe harbour.
- jokuko 12y ago
  If shit like this is real, they (Github) should move their operations away from US. What happens when little assholes like this target something bigger, for example Linux? After all it can be used for all sorts of downloading.
  - dangrossman 12y ago
    The DMCA is the US's implementation of the 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (the bill's formal name in the House was actually "WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998"). Most countries you'd want to run a startup in likely have similar laws -- 187 are members of WIPO. The worst thing a falsely filed notice can do is take down a webpage for under two weeks, until a counter-notice goes in effect, while opening the false filer up to criminal liability. The law includes penalties for such bad faith filings.
    - rmc 12y ago
      Really? I'm not aware of other countries that have a "send a letter and content must be removed and you can't be sued". What's (say) the UK's equivalant of the DMCA?
      - dangrossman 12y ago
        That'd be the European e-commerce directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=bpTpTC1bYVxJph5kmbS14S8vCT237wzxcdx5W1kyQC2Yxvt3kTk1!945338291?uri=CELEX:32000L0031 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID... To maintain the benefits of limited liability for their users' actions, a service provider must "act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information concerned" upon "obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal activities". The easiest way to make a service provider aware of illegal activities is to notify them with evidence, like the identity of the copyright holder, identification of the original works, and attestation that the copyright holder did not authorize the copies, which are the exact content of a DMCA notice. So, send a letter (provide awareness of illegal activity), remove the content, and the host can't be sued. That goes for all EU member states; the deadline to implement this directive into local law was back in 2002. Five non-EU-member states implemented it as well. That's in addition to the nearly 100 signatories to the WIPO treaty. It's true that the format and timeframes of the DMCA system are more formal than the EU directive's requirements, but no matter what part of the world you look in, almost every developed country has formalized such a system in order to limit liability of content hosts for their users' action so long as they take down material under certain conditions. Some of the EU countries did formalize notice-and-takedown procedures of their own even though it wasn't required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_and_take_down#European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_and_take_down#European_U...
- DannyBee 12y ago
  Actually, they probably don't have to honor this DMCA request. DMCA requests may generally only be filed for stuff you actually own. The MPAA does not own popcorn time. There is clearly no direct infringement (unlike a linking site, which would at least be a much closer case) If you want to stop random contributory or indirect infringement, they should have actually sued in court. I'm sure github just didn't want to start a war.
  - gamblor956 12y ago
    You need to re-read the law: 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides that a notice includes "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity..." Popcorn Time is the subject of infringing activity, and hence this would have been a valid takedown notice.
  - eli 12y ago
    They don't have to honor any DMCA requests, but they'd be waiving Safe Harbor protection and incurring greater risk of getting sued along with the author, should the MPAA decide to go that route.
akerl_ 12y ago
GitHub has very little discretionary ability when it comes to these requests, if they want to remain safe from prosecution for DMCA cases. It is up to the person receiving the DMCA to file a counter notice.
- maddev 12y ago
  No need to remain safe. Just set an example right now and get over this forever. What their decision means is that I can't host code on GitHub because I might have down times (at least) if some clown thinks my software can be used to commit crimes. Of course my software can be used to commit crimes. Probably any software can.
maccard 12y ago
They have to. If I send one in about any repo, it must be removed straight away. The pwerson who receives the notice can file and have it reinstated.

Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.

by maddev 12y ago

Disappointing that GitHub honored that request.

eli 12y ago

If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. If the author of repository feels the notice is unfair, they could send a Counter Notification which would obligate Github to put the repository back online (and the MPAA's next step would have to be a lawsuit).

maddev 12y ago
> If they want Safe Harbor protection under the DMCA they have to honor the request. They shouldn't want safe harbor then.
- anonymousab 12y ago
  Then they are the target, and will incur many costs. Fine once, maybe, but what about the tenth time? The hundredth? The thousandth? It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible.
  - maddev 12y ago
    > It's like wanting Google to be the legal shield for everyone committing copyright infringement on their sites. It's not remotely economically feasible. Watching a little bit of youtube in say e.g. Germany might change your mind. Right now the opposite is the case, Google is acting as an illegal minion who censors arbitrary videos by order of anyone who has some cash.
- akerl_ 12y ago
  Not having safe harbor would mean that if anybody posted content to GitHub that did violate copyright, GitHub would be liable and would end up having to fight in court. Even if they won, they would be expending massive amounts of money and effort fighting copyright battles. These battles wouldn't even be fought "on behalf of their users", because the entities taking them to court would also be taking the end users to court.
- rmc 12y ago
  Without safe harbour GitHub could be sued for any copyright infringment that any of their millions (?) of users do. It would be a terrible business decision to give up safe harbour.
jokuko 12y ago
If shit like this is real, they (Github) should move their operations away from US. What happens when little assholes like this target something bigger, for example Linux? After all it can be used for all sorts of downloading.
- dangrossman 12y ago
  The DMCA is the US's implementation of the 1996 treaties of the World Intellectual Property Organization (the bill's formal name in the House was actually "WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998"). Most countries you'd want to run a startup in likely have similar laws -- 187 are members of WIPO. The worst thing a falsely filed notice can do is take down a webpage for under two weeks, until a counter-notice goes in effect, while opening the false filer up to criminal liability. The law includes penalties for such bad faith filings.
  - rmc 12y ago
    Really? I'm not aware of other countries that have a "send a letter and content must be removed and you can't be sued". What's (say) the UK's equivalant of the DMCA?
    - dangrossman 12y ago
      That'd be the European e-commerce directive: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID=bpTpTC1bYVxJph5kmbS14S8vCT237wzxcdx5W1kyQC2Yxvt3kTk1!945338291?uri=CELEX:32000L0031 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/en/ALL/;ELX_SESSIONID... To maintain the benefits of limited liability for their users' actions, a service provider must "act expeditiously to remove or to disable access to the information concerned" upon "obtaining actual knowledge or awareness of illegal activities". The easiest way to make a service provider aware of illegal activities is to notify them with evidence, like the identity of the copyright holder, identification of the original works, and attestation that the copyright holder did not authorize the copies, which are the exact content of a DMCA notice. So, send a letter (provide awareness of illegal activity), remove the content, and the host can't be sued. That goes for all EU member states; the deadline to implement this directive into local law was back in 2002. Five non-EU-member states implemented it as well. That's in addition to the nearly 100 signatories to the WIPO treaty. It's true that the format and timeframes of the DMCA system are more formal than the EU directive's requirements, but no matter what part of the world you look in, almost every developed country has formalized such a system in order to limit liability of content hosts for their users' action so long as they take down material under certain conditions. Some of the EU countries did formalize notice-and-takedown procedures of their own even though it wasn't required. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_and_take_down#European_Union http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notice_and_take_down#European_U...
DannyBee 12y ago
Actually, they probably don't have to honor this DMCA request. DMCA requests may generally only be filed for stuff you actually own. The MPAA does not own popcorn time. There is clearly no direct infringement (unlike a linking site, which would at least be a much closer case) If you want to stop random contributory or indirect infringement, they should have actually sued in court. I'm sure github just didn't want to start a war.
- gamblor956 12y ago
  You need to re-read the law: 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(iii) provides that a notice includes "Identification of the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity..." Popcorn Time is the subject of infringing activity, and hence this would have been a valid takedown notice.
- eli 12y ago
  They don't have to honor any DMCA requests, but they'd be waiving Safe Harbor protection and incurring greater risk of getting sued along with the author, should the MPAA decide to go that route.

akerl_ 12y ago

GitHub has very little discretionary ability when it comes to these requests, if they want to remain safe from prosecution for DMCA cases. It is up to the person receiving the DMCA to file a counter notice.

maddev 12y ago
No need to remain safe. Just set an example right now and get over this forever. What their decision means is that I can't host code on GitHub because I might have down times (at least) if some clown thinks my software can be used to commit crimes. Of course my software can be used to commit crimes. Probably any software can.

maccard 12y ago

They have to. If I send one in about any repo, it must be removed straight away. The pwerson who receives the notice can file and have it reinstated.