dmca VS nyaa

Every DMCA takedown notice in https://github.com/github/dmca is a net win for git as a decentralized version control system, especially for repositories that require signed commits. Unfortunately, some people upload only a snapshot of their repository working directory instead of... using git like it is supposed to be used I guess?

I’m with you thus far, but I’m trying to parse the notice to see why GitHub is even complying (see https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/03/2024-03-1... ) and I think Torrentfreak got it wrong. I think they’re trying to claim infringement on Plex Server, but the English in the takedown notice is barely legible (and it feels like a mixup between trademarks and copyright), to the point that I find GitHub’s compliance odd.

Text of tweet thread:

Hello everyone. We have some unfortunate news to share with you.

Today, we received a DMCA takedown from Valve on all our public GitHub repositories and all its forks made by the community.

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2024/01/2024-01-1...

While we were discussing the project's future internally recently, we already came to the conclusion to stop the development of the project due to the current state of the code being unusable anymore with s&box's recent major engine changes, and that we overall moved on from it.

Sadly, this means this DMCA takedown is the nail in the coffin. We cannot bring it back and we've hit Valve's attention, it seems like they definitely don't want us to use their IP (which is totally fair and legal from them).

DMCA from GitHub: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-10-mazda.md

https://www.thedrive.com/news/mazda-slaps-developer-with-cease-and-desist-for-diy-smart-home-integration

https://web.archive.org/web/20231014070536/https://old.reddit.com/r/homeassistant/comments/1771ywu/removal_of_mazda_connected_services_integration/

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/mazda-connected-service/354221

https://community.home-assistant.io/t/removal-of-mazda-connected-services-integration/625885/36

https://www.home-assistant.io/

https://youtu.be/l2qKEkG29gI

https://youtu.be/NfiIXooD77s

https://youtu.be/PrtbYu1OYhY

https://youtu.be/nigJMu0lUbM

https://youtu.be/qLlxOD5IHYc

> Is there anything that average folk can do against these notices when they're sent to companies like GitHub?

They can file a counter-notice, commit to accepting service of process if the other party wants to sue, and wait 10-14 days. There's a guide at https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic... and there are plenty of example counter-notices in the https://github.com/github/dmca repo.

From the posted notice[1], they answered "No" to the question "Do you claim to have any technological measures in place to control access to your copyrighted content? Please see our Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology if you are unsure." Is that the same thing you are referencing?

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-1...

I don't know why you're arguing with me when I'm literally giving you sources backing up that what I'm saying is a mere statement of fact: contracts are inherently subject to copyright law like any other text, although the individual violation may be hard to demonstrate and cases difficult to win.

If I understand your example correctly, you would take an existing SaaS's ToS (i.e. copy their copyrighted work), publish it as your own (i.e. lie) and then file a DMCA takedown request (i.e. commit perjury) to force them to remove their ToS? Yes, you could do that. But since you likely can't demonstrate that you're the original copyright holder (e.g. trivially their SaaS pre-dates your service and they probably have internal documents like e-mails surrounding the drafting of the ToS whereas you don't unless you forge those as well) and sending a DMCA takedown request for works you don't actually own is literally a felony crime, I don't think that's a winning strategy.

To be clear: yes, there are laws against abusing DMCA takedown requests, precisely because otherwise anyone could just send them out for fun. Specifically DMCA takedown requests include a statement under penalty of perjury from the copyright holder that they hold the copyright. So this isn't a special DMCA law but just a boring old felony crime involved in fraudulently filing illegitimate legal claims.

If you're wondering why you've never heard of this it's probably because you're thinking of sites like YouTube which don't actually receive DMCA takedown requests normally but instead provide an arbitration system to allow content owners to avoid messy legal back-and-forths over the back of Google and instead be trusted based on who they are (i.e. smaller creators will be stuck in appeals limbo trying to talk to a human whereas large corporations will usually be trusted by default). This does not however apply to e.g. GitHub, which is why there is a public collection of DMCA takedown requests hosted by them: https://github.com/github/dmca

To speed up this conversation: if you can think of another example where your conclusion is "but this is dumb" then it's likely because your example is, not the legal situation you're looking at. Also "but this is dumb" is not a counter-argument to "this is what the law is like". The law does not care if you think it is dumb and saying it is dumb is not a good defense if you end up in court.

Takedown notice: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/06/2023-06-2...

The tool is still available on GitLab: https://gitlab.com/bipinkrish/DeGourou

The part where is says finishing up nyaa

As far as I can tell, the copyright mafia's legal action plan is "throw stuff at the wall, see what sticks".

MPA tried to get the source code repository for Nyaa.si removed from GitHub by saying "the Project, which, when downloaded, provides the downloader everything necessary to launch and host a “clone” infringing website identical to Nyaa.si (and, thus, engage in massive infringement of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows)."

It was completely bullshit since they forgot to mention that the project provides everything necessary to engage in massive infringement of copyrighted motion pictures and television shows EXCEPT the actual copyrighted motion pictures and television shows. The repo is back up after a reversal: https://github.com/nyaadevs/nyaa/

The Motion Picture Association filed a DMCA claim against nyaa's code (which is apparently hosted on Github at https://github.com/nyaadevs/nyaa/) claiming that it infringed their copyright. Github looked, and found that it doesn't, so they reverted the copyright takedown.

Right. So explain to me why the repo is back up again now? https://github.com/nyaadevs/nyaa