11–20 of 194 posts
That seems odd, given that Kevin Wayne is co-author of the 4th edition of "Algorithms".
These DMCA requests are created and acted upon without the slightest checking, with no penalty.
There should be some sort of modest cost somewhere to stop this nonsense.
And they make a ton of money.
Please watch this talk for more context (even if you don't like TED talks): https://youtu.be/BnC6IABJXOI
This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.
"Ohh its just some bot" should never be an acceptable response, and people creating these bots should have massive fines attached to their false positives. Otherwise there is no incentive to actually validate or improve what these automation systems are doing, the incentive today is the flag everything and worry about it later...
That is not something society should accept
I give a lot of credit to Sedgewick’s course for helping me break into the software industry, having come from an adjacent field in academia. I hope they can get the repo back up.
This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.
I think it is, because the core problem is not the wrongful takedown of a single repository itself, it's the outlook that the only way to get these "mistakes" reversed is the hope that it will reach the news, Youtube/Google shows us what the latestage of this nightmare looks like. Github is obviously not nearly this bad (yet?). This case will obviously be restored, it's a popular author, but what about people that don't have this reach?
I don't see how talking about this situation can be a bad thing.
This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.
this is textbook harassment.
Not totally unrelated: Pearson is a piece of trash company. They sell very overpriced textbooks and always use DRM in online copies. They lobby for standardized tests in states and get them mandated. Students are put through them. And guess who provides the certificate required by teachers to evaluate those exam copies? Yes, Pearson. And they make a ton of money. Please watch this talk for more context (even if you d…
Not just way overpriced, the few Pearson books I happen to own are of an alarmingly low quality. The pages of a phone book look and feel like premium paper compared to my copy of Blitzer's College Algebra.
This isn't worth getting your feathers ruffled over. Some algorithm or barely-paid human automaton flagged it, someone higher up will notice it, it'll be added to an exception list, problem solved. It's not ideal, but it's not malicious or nefarious or even worth talking about every time something like this happens. It's a simple mistake that has a simple solution.
no consequences for malicious or invalid DMCA is ridiculous (1$ penalty, paid to targeted individual/company for each invalid DMCA would be a good start)
That seems odd, given that Kevin Wayne is co-author of the 4th edition of "Algorithms".
What seems odd is that the code is freely licenced to the public, no matter who wrote it. These DMCA requests are created and acted upon without the slightest checking, with no penalty. There should be some sort of modest cost somewhere to stop this nonsense.
Playing the Devil's Advocate here:
But wouldn't that in turn incentivise actual copyright infringement on account of it potentially being cheaper to mass publish copyrighted material as opposed to request it being taken down?