Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

cheapskatesguide.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 63 posts

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#21

Post by shadowgovt »

shadowgovt wrote: post #12

I'm not precisely sure why original author blames "corporate internet" here. Mr-Steal-Your-Script likely shared it to GitHub because that's convenient, but in the absence of a GitHub, they would post it to their own server, ignore his requests to take it down, and he'd be in the same boat he's in now: hire a lawyer to attempt to assert his rights. The underlying principle---legal representation costs money even if yo…

Honestly, this whole blog post goes from bad to worse.

> I have to assume that he has covered his tracks well enough to remain anonymous.

No you don't. John Doe lawsuits exist. You would be on the hook for legal and possibly detective fees, but if you start a legal process GitHub can be compelled to turn over what records they have about the perpetrator.

> Thanks to my experience with Mr-Steal-Your-Script, I am seriously considering keeping any additional code that I write to myself.

That seems wise.

> If you have found this article worthwhile, please share it on your favorite social media. You will find links at the top of the page.

I'm not sure I want to risk it at this point. The article is copyrighted all rights reserved, and we've seen how the author feels about their publicly-posted information being shared.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#22

Post by shadowgovt »

monoideism wrote: post #16
DethNinja wrote: post #11

Title is some click-bait, github didn’t stole your code, somebody else did and posted it at github. You will have to fill DMCA and if they don’t take it down then claim github stole it.

Try reading the title again. He never asserts that Github stole his code, neither in the title, nor elsewhere.

Reread and is still misleading. Github, the corporate entity, did not steal anyone's code. It is complying with United States safe harbor law for a hosting service.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#23

Post by gravypod »

LeonB wrote: post #13
shadowgovt wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And if GitHub required a person who posted code legitimately and was subject to vexatious interference from fake copyright claims to hire a lawyer, it would cost that person money. Safe harbor doesn't give much guidance to hosting companies about who needs to hire the lawyer, other than to note that if they try to practice law by adjudicating these cases themselves, they're on the hook to hire the lawyer.

The user’s name is Mr Steal Your Script. The right approach in this case is not to waste money on a lawyer (or expect some lawyer to work pro Bono). The right approach is to post about it publicly and bring shame upon GitHub for being the literal jar or of a Mr Steal Your Script. is

GitHub is not advised to moderate that content itself. That could make it loose it's safe harbor protections.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#24

Post by CarelessExpert »

stormcode wrote: post #14
Udo wrote: post #6

It's not GitHub who stole the code, it's a GitHub user who published it there against the licensing terms. While I do share the author's frustration with the fact that GitHub does zero fact checking, my concerns go entirely in the other direction: much of the internet now works in such a way that a DMCA takedown notice will effectively remove any content someone doesn't want out there. I do understand why platforms d…

A world where the true author of software(or anything) can't get it taken down when it has been stolen isn't great. Company's should be held responsible. If you are allowing a vehicle for theft, you need to have reasonable anti-theft procedures in place. We can't let corporations deny their own responsibility here.

> A world where the true author of software(or anything) can't get it taken down when it has been stolen isn't great

What? He can. He even told us how to do it: hire a lawyer to draft a letter demanding it's removal.

Yes, that costs money. Welcome to the adversarial legal system in the Western world. But he has a path if he wants to take it.

Personally I much prefer this over GitHub unilaterally acting as judge, jury, and executioner.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#25

Post by burnthrow »

> My copyright notice says that no one may modify or re-distribute it. I wanted to make my code free for anyone to use, but I did not want to be forced into some kind of competition with others for control of it.

Did the author actually believe that his amateur licence terms allow practical reuse? This is effectively an "All rights reserved" notice.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#26

Post by monoideism »

shadowgovt wrote: post #21
shadowgovt wrote: post #12

I'm not precisely sure why original author blames "corporate internet" here. Mr-Steal-Your-Script likely shared it to GitHub because that's convenient, but in the absence of a GitHub, they would post it to their own server, ignore his requests to take it down, and he'd be in the same boat he's in now: hire a lawyer to attempt to assert his rights. The underlying principle---legal representation costs money even if yo…

Honestly, this whole blog post goes from bad to worse. > I have to assume that he has covered his tracks well enough to remain anonymous. No you don't. John Doe lawsuits exist. You would be on the hook for legal and possibly detective fees, but if you start a legal process GitHub can be compelled to turn over what records they have about the perpetrator. > Thanks to my experience with Mr-Steal-Your-Script, I am serio…

You responded to yourself?

Why?

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#27

Post by stormcode »

shadowgovt wrote: post #21
shadowgovt wrote: post #12

I'm not precisely sure why original author blames "corporate internet" here. Mr-Steal-Your-Script likely shared it to GitHub because that's convenient, but in the absence of a GitHub, they would post it to their own server, ignore his requests to take it down, and he'd be in the same boat he's in now: hire a lawyer to attempt to assert his rights. The underlying principle---legal representation costs money even if yo…

Honestly, this whole blog post goes from bad to worse. > I have to assume that he has covered his tracks well enough to remain anonymous. No you don't. John Doe lawsuits exist. You would be on the hook for legal and possibly detective fees, but if you start a legal process GitHub can be compelled to turn over what records they have about the perpetrator. > Thanks to my experience with Mr-Steal-Your-Script, I am serio…

That's a bit disingenuous. Asserting their rights over software they wrote that was blatantly stolen doesn't make them a bad person, as you seem to be implying.

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#28

Post by kernelbugs »

While I sympathize with the author's frustration (especially towards the one who intentionally republished their code without permission), it seems the author either does not fully understand the DMCA process or that it is not unique to GitHub.

I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that a DMCA counter notice asserts that - under penalty of purjury - there is a good faith belief that the DMCA takedown request is invalid. Once a host receives this, they wait 10-14 days and then must restore the hosted content. The only available next step in the process for the copyright holder is to use the court system.

"In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counternotification. In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.

Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.(Section 512(f))." [1, Page 12]

[1]: https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf

Re: My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code

#30

Post by shadowgovt »

stormcode wrote: post #14
Udo wrote: post #6

It's not GitHub who stole the code, it's a GitHub user who published it there against the licensing terms. While I do share the author's frustration with the fact that GitHub does zero fact checking, my concerns go entirely in the other direction: much of the internet now works in such a way that a DMCA takedown notice will effectively remove any content someone doesn't want out there. I do understand why platforms d…

A world where the true author of software(or anything) can't get it taken down when it has been stolen isn't great. Company's should be held responsible. If you are allowing a vehicle for theft, you need to have reasonable anti-theft procedures in place. We can't let corporations deny their own responsibility here.

The reasonable anti-theft procedure in place is the DMCA takedown process.

It has flaws to be sure, but the next step for this complaintant is to follow it. They asserted copyright, the person who posted the code challenged their assertion, and their relief is in the courts.

Post reply on HN