My Latest Brush with the Corporate Internet: GitHub Has My Stolen Code • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by LeonB » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 3:55 AM UTC

gravypod wrote: post #23

LeonB wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am not a lawyer, but I’ve read this one article:

http://copyright.nova.edu/safe-harbor/

...and I think that if GitHub allowed them to post the content in the first place (ie it’s at the direction of the user, not GitHub’s moderators) and then when a red flag became known to them (for example via publicity) and they used common sense to ban that one repo, they would not lose their safe harbour they’d in fact be acting in accordance with it.

But like I say, I’m no lawyer.

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

#62

Post by gspr » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 8:07 AM UTC

thorough wrote: post #60

gspr wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do think that would be a problem. But I don't think that's what's on the line here. Why would you need a lawyer to file a DMCA notice against GitHub if you're 100% certain that the code in question is copyrighted by you and distributed unlawfully?

I think the article states and it has been repeated several times in the comments here that the author already did so and that a lawyer is now required because the offender disputed the claim.

Why would a lawyer be required?

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

#63

Post by shadowgovt » Fri, Dec 04, 2020, 12:22 PM UTC

monoideism wrote: post #59

shadowgovt wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Harsh. You are correct, I misread it. And I am not the only one. "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's amusing. You made multiple negative comments ("click bait", etc) based on a misunderstanding of the title, replied sarcastically when I pointed it out, and then when I bluntly pointed it out, you throw that at me?

Double check my username. I'm not DethNinja; I didn't say it was clickbait.

No sarcasm was intended in my response; I legitimately didn't see what you were seeing because I was misreading the title also.