491–500 of 1001 posts
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=2
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24872911&p=3
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but as far as I know GitHub has to comply with DMCA requests. Otherwise, they would lose their safe harbor protection and become liable for all distributions of copyrighted content through their service. However, GitHub is also required to reinstate `youtube-dl` if the creator files a DMCA counter-notice.
This is not a valid DMCA takedown request, as the claimant has not asserted copyright ownership of anything in the repository. This notice is a conflation of two separate aspects of the DMCA, the copyright takedown process and technological circumvention devices. If the RIAA wishes to claim that youtube-dl is a circumvention device, the proper route is to sue the authors of youtube-dl. This notice is an abuse of proc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but as far as I know GitHub has to comply with DMCA requests. Otherwise, they would lose their safe harbor protection and become liable for all distributions of copyrighted content through their service. However, GitHub is also required to reinstate `youtube-dl` if the creator files a DMCA counter-notice.
This is not a valid DMCA takedown request, as the claimant has not asserted copyright ownership of anything in the repository. This notice is a conflation of two separate aspects of the DMCA, the copyright takedown process and technological circumvention devices. If the RIAA wishes to claim that youtube-dl is a circumvention device, the proper route is to sue the authors of youtube-dl. This notice is an abuse of proc…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How is this perjury? No one's under oath.
Perjury may or may not be the right term here, but it's definitely bad faith. EU and German legal definitions hold no weight on a US law. The repo contains no copyrighted material.
The DMCA doesn't magically give you the right to file "takedown requests" for circumvention devices: as stated elsewhere in this thread, they must sue in an appropriate United States venue.
This filing is absolutely in bad faith and the preparing attorney should actually face professional censure.
Perjury?
> Under penalty of perjury, we submit that the RIAA is authorized to act on behalf of its member companies on matters involving the infringement of their sound recordings, audiovisual works and images, including enforcing their copyrights and common law rights on the Internet.
Absolutely none of these things are applicable to this case.
The removal of youtube-dl is a loss to the open source community. I hope this does not set a precedence going forward and that authors re-establish themselves (and the bug tracker, which had immense amount of information). At the same time, this lead me to browse the Github's DMCA repo, which has some real gems. For example, this DMCA takedown of repo with copied course assignment of a different student and did not c…
If someone here with a good research-paper-search-fu can find the paper, it would help help our community a lot. All I remember is that it was from some peer-to-peer conference, and I read it in 2008.
How is this not perjury again? They need to be punished for this harshly.
What about this is perjury? The readme actually did encourage downloading copyrighted material...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Someone should issue DMCAs for the Chromium and Firefox repos. Fight fire with fire.
That is extremely illegal.