It's interesting to note that one of the two notices in this repository is from Sony, and appears to be demanding the removal of PS3 jailbreaking tools.
The DMCA's prohibition on DRM circumvention is in a different section (17 USC 1201) from the section on copyright infringement (17 USC 512), in which the safe harbor/takedown notice stuff is defined. It's not clear to me that DRM circumvention thus qualifies as copyright infringement, or that any of the safe harbor stuff would apply to hosts of circumvention tools.
Certainly, Sony's notice doesn't identify any of their works that are being infringed, so the notice seems to be invalid according to the usual rules, specifically 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Can anybody more familiar with the law explain what's going on with this? Why is the procedure from 17 USC 512 being applied to a (alleged) violation of 17 USC 1201? Or is this just another flaw in Sony's handling of this mess?
What I love about this strategy is that is introduces a PR cost to the sender for sending DMCA notices.
It also increases the likelihood that the DMCA is legitimate, at least from the senders perspective because they'd rather not be seen lying in public.
Making this republishing policy standard among online companies with a standard URI like /dmca-notices/ would allow aggregation and probably reduce DMCA total cost to publishers.
My first thought was "A Git repository instead of a blog? That seems like an odd choice."
However, upon a moment's reflection: this is awesome. What if someone issued a take down notice on the takedown repository or something like that? People can fork it locally and be confident that they have the right data thanks to Git's natural hashing behavior!
Totally agree on the redirect. As far as our response, there would essentially be nothing to publish. We inform the repo owner and the rest is up to them.
I kind of agree, but this reminds me of "if you give a mouse a cookie…" Who else does this? I'd like everyone to, but it's great that GitHub does. They do great work.
At first I thought they were doing this for humor (like the piratebay's publishing of "cease and desist" letters), but when I clicked the links to the repos and realized they did get removed, I kinda felt sad.
With regards the contact details being redacted ...
In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary. The dispute would be settled by rational discussion and agreement reached amicably. But the world isn't like that.
Rightly or wrongly someone will take exception and possibly pursue what they see as "justice". Publishing the contacts details might prove just a little too tempting for some.
I do think that actions such as DMCA take-down notices should be a matter of public record, and should be available in a standard place. I would even like to see a "central" repository for easy reference.
That's how the DMCA process works. The last thing we want our users to think is we're deleting repos for no reason, that's why we're publishing the takedowns from here on out.
We receive the notice, lock the repo, and inform its owner why it's been locked. At that point, they can either remove the infringing code or make a counter claim and we'll unlock it provided the original party doesn't file a court order.
It seems to me more about letting people know why they have taken down the content rather than challenging the law like the take down lists on things like the pirate bay.
While Google publishes the DMCA takedown requests in relation to their search engine results, it does not publish the requests for removal of content contained within their own infrastructure.
Perhaps Github should do a little further research before feeling "inspired".
what do you mean by "content contained within their own infrastructure"? I thought they forwarded the notices they get to chilling effects (and youtube ones are just posted in place of the video itself).
edit: this page http://www.google.com/dmca.html has about a 50/50 split across products between "may" and "will" be forwarded to Chilling Effects.
[+] [-] wtallis|15 years ago|reply
The DMCA's prohibition on DRM circumvention is in a different section (17 USC 1201) from the section on copyright infringement (17 USC 512), in which the safe harbor/takedown notice stuff is defined. It's not clear to me that DRM circumvention thus qualifies as copyright infringement, or that any of the safe harbor stuff would apply to hosts of circumvention tools.
Certainly, Sony's notice doesn't identify any of their works that are being infringed, so the notice seems to be invalid according to the usual rules, specifically 17 USC 512(c)(3)(A)(ii).
Can anybody more familiar with the law explain what's going on with this? Why is the procedure from 17 USC 512 being applied to a (alleged) violation of 17 USC 1201? Or is this just another flaw in Sony's handling of this mess?
[+] [-] Seth_Kriticos|15 years ago|reply
https://github.com/github/dmca/commit/d6b2d97e801dc16d2aeb25...
[+] [-] mmaunder|15 years ago|reply
It also increases the likelihood that the DMCA is legitimate, at least from the senders perspective because they'd rather not be seen lying in public.
Making this republishing policy standard among online companies with a standard URI like /dmca-notices/ would allow aggregation and probably reduce DMCA total cost to publishers.
[+] [-] rdtsc|15 years ago|reply
http://thepiratebay.org/legal
One of my favorites:
http://static.thepiratebay.org/whitestripes_resp2.txt
[+] [-] rlpb|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snprbob86|15 years ago|reply
However, upon a moment's reflection: this is awesome. What if someone issued a take down notice on the takedown repository or something like that? People can fork it locally and be confident that they have the right data thanks to Git's natural hashing behavior!
[+] [-] Sephr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjhyett|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ihodes|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] smackjer|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jcr|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] seabee|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fleitz|15 years ago|reply
Read here in their request, for some reason the lawyer is referencing RFC 1036 https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2011-01-28-tera.m...
[+] [-] drdaeman|15 years ago|reply
I also wonder, is it really illegal to re-implement MMORPG server?
[+] [-] hasenj|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lukev|15 years ago|reply
We want people to copyright less, and for copyright laws to be reasonable, and punishments proportionate. Not to do away with copyright alltogether.
[+] [-] sliverstorm|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] RiderOfGiraffes|15 years ago|reply
In an ideal world this wouldn't be necessary. The dispute would be settled by rational discussion and agreement reached amicably. But the world isn't like that.
Rightly or wrongly someone will take exception and possibly pursue what they see as "justice". Publishing the contacts details might prove just a little too tempting for some.
I do think that actions such as DMCA take-down notices should be a matter of public record, and should be available in a standard place. I would even like to see a "central" repository for easy reference.
[+] [-] wrl|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjhyett|15 years ago|reply
We receive the notice, lock the repo, and inform its owner why it's been locked. At that point, they can either remove the infringing code or make a counter claim and we'll unlock it provided the original party doesn't file a court order.
More info: http://help.github.com/dmca/
[+] [-] robryan|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] emehrkay|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] n-named|15 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albertzeyer|15 years ago|reply
I really wonder how that falls under DMCA at all.
[+] [-] bigwally|15 years ago|reply
Perhaps Github should do a little further research before feeling "inspired".
[+] [-] magicalist|15 years ago|reply
edit: this page http://www.google.com/dmca.html has about a 50/50 split across products between "may" and "will" be forwarded to Chilling Effects.