71–76 of 76 posts
I’ve just found out about this IPTV thing just last week and it’s down. Strangely feels like it’s my fault. They don’t want me to watch nice things. Enjoyed watching local tourism & attraction channel called BeachTV. It was comfy. It’s sad it’s gone now. Wish I knew about it some time ago,
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Seems like no one has ever been prosecuted for perjury on a DMCA take down notice. This feels like more of an empty threat by Github to prevent false DMCA complaints, but of course submitting claims on their repos would be one heck of a way to test that. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...
The law also recognizes that attorneys work for their clients and with in many ways are obligated to do what the client wishes. that includes "fucking around" with the law, it seems. Legal ethics rules are supposed to prevent the worst of it, but because it happened so rarely prior to the current day, the legal system has developed no "antibodies" against this kind of behavior.
it is also becoming clear to attorneys that there is little or no punishment for malevolent behavior except in extremely egregious situations, so expect this trend to continue for a while until some remedy is developed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
the DMCA does not care if you pay or not. the 10-day counterclaim response window is required by law.
> the 10-day counterclaim response window is required by law. Punitive towards individuals and small businesses. From what I can see, it seems to be a curated list of IPTV sources [1] Which puts it in search engine activity territory. I'm reminded that Github stood up to the UK's City of London Police who issued a DMCA for the PirateBay Proxy on GitHub. [2] However Law can be used to resource burn entities where no c…
take it up with Congress via your local representatives. I didn't write the law.
The DMCA makes almost no requirement that the claim be valid. It is only obviously invalid claims which are allowed to be ignored by the hosting provider receiving the DMCA claim. All other DMCA claims must result in the takedown of the cited content, and it doesn't matter if the claim is valid or not, it doesn't matter if there is precedent regarding other content; the only thing that matters when a claim is received is that it not be an obviously false claim.
There is no due process between the time a claim is received and the time of the takedown of the content cited in the claim. It is an assumption of infringement, with the 10-day thing I previously described being the only way out unless the victim chooses to sue.
I'm a bit annoyed that people (who were apparently educated on the DMCA by Slashdot comment sections alone) seem to have a lot of detailed knowledge about the DMCA but not about the portion of the DMCA which describes the 10-day counterclaim response window.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case. Is there some "small claims" type of court where that would do that with minimal cost for the damaged person? I know way too many people who posted stuff on youtube that was either clear fair use or clearly not the copyrighted content, but youtubes automatic ID of mus…
Also note that YouTube's ContentID process is not a DMCA process. It is a privately negotiated system that YouTube have come to a commercial arrangement with various rightsowners in order to minimise their legal liability. You have no come back against this, because they are not DMCA notices at the first stage to be improper.
If you want a video hosting service that is going to have your back on this then you are probably going to need to use one that is more expensive than free, and quite possibly demonstrate that you have indemnity insurance.
Well, 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…
Maintainers had commented, said they had an open ticket but no response, and didn't know what was going on, and the ticket was 9 days old. That's where it came from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Seems like no one has ever been prosecuted for perjury on a DMCA take down notice. This feels like more of an empty threat by Github to prevent false DMCA complaints, but of course submitting claims on their repos would be one heck of a way to test that. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/51541/has-anyone-bee...