https://web.archive.org/web/20230204131826/https://github.co...
Shortly before takedown
DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
21–30 of 76 posts
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#22I would recommend avoiding making contributions on GitHub. If you want an account for search and whatnot fine, but I had an account with hundreds of stars killed. They said it was because I created a second account. I said they could delete the second account, or I would do it. They refused to accept this suggestion and are keeping both banned. What's worse is they also kill every single issue, PR and comment you've…
What would you recommend instead?
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#23Well, its tough to say what the situation actually is. 9 days with no response, is a surefire way to force any professional group off your host, and embroil yourself in bad press, and potential litigation. That said the group may not be that professional but they deserve a timely response. Can't say for sure but this sure looks and sounds more like potential antitrust violations/issues on the MS/Github side, than DMC…
Sorry, I don't understand your post. Could you share where you are getting this information (e.g. you say "9 days with no response", where is that coming from?)
All I can see from the link is that the repo was taken down due to a terms of service violation. If there is more info/details/etc. about why this repo was taken down, would be nice if there were some links to that instead. Get's kinda frustrated that article submitters think we're somehow privy to the same "inside baseball" as they are, without providing any more information.
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#24Any plausible (and not expensive) recourse in such situations? I've had a game server emulator project DMCA-ed previously, and my team's casual research couldn't come up with any solutions. Despite the takedown's text being factually incorrect (it was all rewritten code, not proprietary), there seemed to be no one to appeal to. Instead, we just moved it off GitHub with no further negative consequences. This resulted…
Not really. I don't think Github has any continuing service obligation to you, especially as a non-paying user. Taking Github to court to find out for sure is probably expensive. In theory, you could provide a counter notice, and Github says they will reenable repos after two weeks of a counter notice unless the claimed owner provides Github with notice of a lawsuit. But you may want to get legal advice before you do…
It might be expensive but the false claimant would end up paying the legal bills
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#25I would recommend avoiding making contributions on GitHub. If you want an account for search and whatnot fine, but I had an account with hundreds of stars killed. They said it was because I created a second account. I said they could delete the second account, or I would do it. They refused to accept this suggestion and are keeping both banned. What's worse is they also kill every single issue, PR and comment you've…
When you are a platform as big as them, you can only do this so much before it crosses a line into antitrust. Biden's Administration just hired a ton of anti-trust lawyers. Unfortunately its a sad fact that the people making these decisions are the people who don't have the natural sense to not do this in the first place for the simple reason that the behavior drives negative sentiment and outcomes in the long run fo…
This is about as far from antitrust as you can get. It’s fine to think you know things, but you don’t.
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#26Note to article submitters: The HN audience aren't mind readers. Posting a link like this, which simply shows the GitHub repo being taken down with a terms of service violation, with no further information, isn't helpful. There is no info:
1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was.
2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request
3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why this happened
I'm guessing maybe there are some articles/forums/etc. that have some more context. If so, you should submit links to those instead. If not, and you just want to bring attention to this, submit a text submission to explain more details around what's going on.
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#27Earlier quoted context omitted.
the law says that GitHub (in this case) must take down the repo if a DMCA claim is made. the reason doesn't matter, the identity of the claimant doesn't matter, and the repo in question doesn't matter. the owner of the repo that has been taken down can file a counterclaim (that may not be the word, I am not a lawyer) which the original DMCA-thrower must respond to within 10 days. if they do not respond in 10 days, or…
So if I sent a DMCA notice against every one of Microsoft's Repos on Github, they would go down for ten days if I ignored the counter-claim? Because if not, why not?
Because that'd be perjury, which is a federal crime.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
I'm just gonna quote GitHub "The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability — that is, you could get sued for money damages. The DMCA itself provides for damages against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing. "
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#28Note to article submitters: The HN audience aren't mind readers. Posting a link like this, which simply shows the GitHub repo being taken down with a terms of service violation, with no further information, isn't helpful. There is no info: 1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was. 2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request 3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why…
Only 1) would be really valuable here. Expecting a legitimate 2) explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive.
Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd.
If you have an actual better source then by all means, share it. I'm sure dang will consider swapping it.
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#29Note to article submitters: The HN audience aren't mind readers. Posting a link like this, which simply shows the GitHub repo being taken down with a terms of service violation, with no further information, isn't helpful. There is no info: 1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was. 2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request 3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why…
Only 1) would be really valuable here. Expecting a legitimate 2) explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive. Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd. I…
> explanation from a DMCA request is idealistic/naive.
There is not even proof/details it was a DMCA takedown request. Given the subject matter, of course wouldn't be surprised, but all you are going to get in the comments is pure speculation/blathering because there is simply no information about what's going on.
Re: DMCA Takedown of iptv-org/iptv on GitHub
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
the law says that GitHub (in this case) must take down the repo if a DMCA claim is made. the reason doesn't matter, the identity of the claimant doesn't matter, and the repo in question doesn't matter. the owner of the repo that has been taken down can file a counterclaim (that may not be the word, I am not a lawyer) which the original DMCA-thrower must respond to within 10 days. if they do not respond in 10 days, or…
So if I sent a DMCA notice against every one of Microsoft's Repos on Github, they would go down for ten days if I ignored the counter-claim? Because if not, why not?
You should give it a go - in reality these rules are for people hosting other people’s content (as in GitHub hosting your project), and filing against MS repos probably falls in a grey area, or an area where MS is more likely to say F you.
The problem is that the DMCA is designed to explicitly allow and encourage weaponisation of fraudulent take down claims. Specifically in GH doesn’t obey the DMCA and pull the repo the DMCA makes them legally liable for the alleged infringement. Why would they take on that risk for any random organization/project that likely can’t afford the legal costs?