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

GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 194 posts

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#71

Post by Semaphor »

acdha wrote: post #60
IceWreck wrote: post #35

We should have a penalty/fine for fake DCMA requests. Big corps keep sending automated DCMAs with little consequence and often the little guys do have the resources to fight back.

This is in the law, but it’s rarely enforced. Stepping up education for judges and support for people filing lawsuits against major companies would be a relatively easy way to start making the automated bots riskier to run.

Is it? I always thought there is only a fine for misrepresenting that you are representing the copyright owner. Not for falsely claiming a piece of work is indeed infringing.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#72

Post by maweki »

judge2020 wrote: post #70
maweki wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are mad at google for _automatic_ takedowns, as they enable bad actors and are arguably not in the spirit of the law. In this case here, github does not employ an overzealous automated system. This is a manual DMCA claim and the issuer is the single actor here, who could be to blame.

People got mad at Google for automatically honoring DMCA takedowns, which is what GitHub is doing, as they both have to if they want to maintain not being legally liable. Content ID is also a system people are mad with but has nothing to do with DMCA besides Google saying 'pretty please only enroll content you own into Content ID'.

For github this is not an automated process, nor is the policy based on a presumption of guilt:

https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/dmca-takedown-...

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#74

Post by molyss »

mellosouls wrote: post #4

The notice is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2... Kevin Wayne (repo owner presumably) is listed as co-author on the book that is published by Pearson, who have issued the notice. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sedgewic...

When someone “swears under the penalty of perjury” something that is inaccurate, and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty, there’s something wrong with the legal system.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#75

Post by da_big_ghey »

truth_ wrote: post #34
shakaijin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they release new versions of books all the time and force their use in classes, making it impossible to use 2nd hand textbooks in a lot of cases. *I mean, come on. How of ten do fundamental physics change... Pearson is a company that should not exist.

That's an unethical practice employed by some companies. Although in many cases it can be circumvented by buying old textbooks anyway. I am glad that many CS authors nowadays make textbooks available for free. And companies like O'Reilly, Packt, and Manning provide DRM free copies.

also many professor make wink-and-nod that student may simply "find pdf copy" from internet. good ones are not desiring for to make students pay large moneys.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#76

Post by malka »

mvolfik wrote: post #47
mellosouls wrote: post #4

The notice is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2... Kevin Wayne (repo owner presumably) is listed as co-author on the book that is published by Pearson, who have issued the notice. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sedgewic...

yup, it was the author, see counternotice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2...

> So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.

Ahhh I see that the DMCA is still a wonderful doxing weapon :)

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#77

Post by bronson »

truth_ wrote: post #34
shakaijin wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, they release new versions of books all the time and force their use in classes, making it impossible to use 2nd hand textbooks in a lot of cases. *I mean, come on. How of ten do fundamental physics change... Pearson is a company that should not exist.

That's an unethical practice employed by some companies. Although in many cases it can be circumvented by buying old textbooks anyway. I am glad that many CS authors nowadays make textbooks available for free. And companies like O'Reilly, Packt, and Manning provide DRM free copies.

When I tried using a previous edition, the page numbers and most of the exercises didn't line up. "Thursday's test will be on pp 144-172 inclusive, and get to know exercise 5.17." It put me at a surprisingly big disadvantage.

Pretty sure the publishers anticipated this.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#78

Post by hoppyhoppy2 »

molyss wrote: post #74
mellosouls wrote: post #4

The notice is here: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2021/04/2021-04-2... Kevin Wayne (repo owner presumably) is listed as co-author on the book that is published by Pearson, who have issued the notice. https://www.pearson.com/us/higher-education/program/Sedgewic...

When someone “swears under the penalty of perjury” something that is inaccurate, and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty, there’s something wrong with the legal system.

> and the legal system does make it simple to apply that penalty

I assume you're missing a word there?

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#79

Post by hedora »

the8472 wrote: post #56
qayxc wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Costs could be per false claim, it would incentivize them to decrease their false positive rate.

The law is based on the doctrine of unclean hands. Judges decide on a case by case basis, based on the facts pertaining to the case.

An artist finds their life’s work online, and issues a takedown notice, not realizing it contained a few songs they don’t notice? No big deal.

A label pays a takedown notice mill, that produces completely bogus / mistargeted takedown requests on a regular basis? Scorched earth. They lose the ability to enforce any copyrights on their catalog.

Re: GitHub repository for Sedgewick's Algorithms is taken down

#80

Post by gumby »

modin wrote: post #48
truth_ wrote: post #12

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…

OT but is there a reason one would not like TED talks? Your parenthesis made me feel it could be controversial (comparable to social media).

I never liked TED talks.

I attended one TED back when they were super exclusive, because they were super exclusive. The good lesson: super exclusive for the sake of it a waste of time.*

TED talks were pretty much of the “I am doing this cool thing and isn’t it so exciting?” That actually does sound pretty cool: the world is full of exciting things I’ve never heard of or have heard of but never appreciated.

The reality, both in the old TED and the new: the talks are almost all structured in the same mode: “you are smart for listening to this info that other people don’t appreciate.” Validating the listener for spending their time listening.

If I wanted that I’d go on a walk with my dog. Which I do instead.

* things can be exclusive just because there’s finite space and you want to have people who contribute (e.g don’t invite me to a medievalists convention; I’ll have fun but won’t add to the discussion). This works if it’s not self-congratulatory and if people pro actively mix it up over time to bring in new ppl.

Post reply on HN