It's interesting that GitHub decided to process it like a DMCA notice, unclear to me if they had to, and even less clear if the counter-notice is meaningful.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_Copyright_Infringement_...
I remember when the MPAA (as it was known then) was trying to shut down the little known service that was attempting to rent DVD's via mail....
Edit: Just realized there’s nothing distributed about it.
We know that our former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper perjured himself before congress with impunity as well. https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2018/01/19/james-clap...
https://www.newsweek.com/ken-starr-says-he-almost-charged-hi...
I expect situations like that contribute to the lack of response, along with the fact that providers often ignore DMCA complaints or put things back up without following the statutory takedown period.
Playing devil's advocate, that information may have been protected by NDA. In that case, you'd have to sue Google to divulge the complainant.
That is absolutely untrue. Github could ignore the notice or put the content back up immediately. If they do so, they may lose the DMCA safe harbor for this complaint-- but if there is no credible infringement, that isn't of much consequence.
The issue isn't their actions, it's that the process requires a 10 day wait, regardless of whether the content is infringing or not.
Git hosted in Europe:
Anyone know other git hosts outside the US? pls reply
Tor is anti-censorship but can be a SPOF.
IPFS provides full identity of machine to the network (internal and external IPs), but is highly redundant and resistant to single attacks.
And IPFS refuses to mainline work for Tor/I2P... So it still spits out every adapter to the world. Yes, even your internal non-routable addresses.
This is an excellent takeaway that should be upvoted.
This is the reason that you can't use weak (or even unambiguous!) copyright infringement to take down popular sites-- their hosts will just forego the safe harbor, perhaps in exchange for indemnification.
Private parties? No such luck.
To file a counter notice, they must have a "good faith" reason for their dispute.
The MPAA's claim is that Popcorn is used for piracy. IANAL and don't know the case law, so I don't know if it has merit.
But a "good faith" dispute has to address the claim. Their dispute is arguing that they own the code. The MPAA never claimed they don't, that's simply not responding to the substance of their argument.
They should really get an attorney. FFS, at least read the counter notice guidelines; I think they believe they're dealing with Github customer support.
The MPAA still might still sue them though, DMCA notices don't cover it but copyright law does.
IANAL, this is not legal advice, blah blah blah,
There was no MPA-owned copyrighted material in the repository the DMCA takedown notice was invoked on. The popcorn developers own the copyright to their code, and no MPA media assets are in the Github repository. The MPA has no copyright claim against the source code on Github.
The MPA could sue the developers for any reason they like, but that is a very different process from DMCA takedown notices. This was an abuse of the DMCA takedown process and the counternotice is wholly correct.
And if Popcorn had made your point, then they'd have made a good faith counter notice. You're directly addressing the takedown notice by disputing its basis in law.
But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.
Popcorn did make that point. It's obvious English is not the author's primary language, but can be understood to be making that claim:
> The code is 100 % ours and do[es] not contain any [MPA-owned] copyright material[,] please check again[.]
That's a good-faith counter notice and disputes the legal basis for the takedown.
> But a judge can't work off what a party ought to say, they have to adjudicate what they do say.
What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith? (Nevermind that the original takedown from MPA was not in good faith.)
I think people are reaching that conclusion from prior bad behavior, and maybe courts should consider that.
But I don't see a factual basis for that in their filing. The MPAA establishes legal precedent and harm done to them; they check all the boxes for what a complaint is supposed to be.
Also, this doesn't fall into the patterns of verbose but invalid complaints, e.g. it clearly isn't some takedown they spammed at a random publisher.
> What are you reading into the counternotice that makes you believe it isn't in good-faith?
It's what I'm not reading that means I can't make the case that it is good faith.
The complaint addresses one issue. All I can read in Popcorn's response is that they didn't do something else entirely.
Your argument is simply not what they wrote, and the law requires one to be explicit, which is why legal brief is a contradiction in terms.
Because it's not relevant to the complaint, it's as though they left it blank and hit submit.
To avoid cranking the discussion up to 11, let me recast your analogy to, "if people break into houses with crowbars, why would you blame the crowbar company?"
I think under the MPAA's argument, Popcorn is like a crowbar sold with a GPS device that finds unoccupied houses to break into.