I'm not a lawyer but afaik the DMCA takedown process is prescribed by statute, and platforms must comply to qualify for the legal protections that make hosting user-generated content possible.
Friedman would certainly be removed by Microsoft if he jeopardized GitHub's legal protections by defying the mandated process, to say nothing of the potential of creating personal legal liability, both criminal and civil.
youtube-dl remains freely available off-GitHub (not to mention on the local disk of anyone who ran `git clone`). I just used it 10 minutes ago. There is no public good served by defying the law here, and there is no reason to put the whole kit and kaboodle on the line over it.
tl;dr, ignoring the DMCA process isn't just a "somewhat risky move". If we're going to break out the pitchforks, let's at least point them in the right direction: write your Congresscritters and tell them you want to see copyright law reform.
>I'm not a lawyer but afaik the DMCA takedown process is prescribed by statute, and platforms must comply to qualify for the legal protections that make hosting user-generated content possible.
Correct, that's why I said they should deliberately open themselves to liability, and the fight this in court.
Moreover, technically they already have, anyway. The anti-circumvention law (17 § 1201) does not even offer safe harbor protections; these are meant for copyright infringement only (17 § 512).
>Friedman would certainly be removed by Microsoft if he jeopardized GitHub's legal protections by defying the mandated process, to say nothing of the potential of creating personal legal liability, both criminal and civil.
Certainly? There is a risk of that happening, sure. But that is counter to the risk that MS faces from backlash within tech over a decision to fire him for taking on the RIAA.
But yeah, I know, Github and Microsoft standing up here is wishful thinking. One may dream :D
>youtube-dl remains freely available off-GitHub (not to mention on the local disk of anyone who ran `git clone`). I just used it 10 minutes ago. There is no public good served by defying the law here, and there is no reason to put the whole kit and kaboodle on the line over it.
It is less accessible. And the RIAA will not stop coming for them. Getting them thrown out of search results by sending the same legal bullshitery to google, bing, duckduckgo etc. Going after the hosters of the website (like they apparently already tried)
Moreover, they "lost" a large chunk of the community they had on github, incl issues and discussions etc (maybe Friedman at least has the stones to let them have their data?). People will also now think twice before getting involved in the project.
>tl;dr, ignoring the DMCA process isn't just a "somewhat risky move".
That's exactly what it is. The RIAA would have to respond by suing them (or stopping their campaign). Github isn't automatically liable, they just lost protection from liability, but can still win in courts.
Friedman would certainly be removed by Microsoft if he jeopardized GitHub's legal protections by defying the mandated process, to say nothing of the potential of creating personal legal liability, both criminal and civil.
youtube-dl remains freely available off-GitHub (not to mention on the local disk of anyone who ran `git clone`). I just used it 10 minutes ago. There is no public good served by defying the law here, and there is no reason to put the whole kit and kaboodle on the line over it.
tl;dr, ignoring the DMCA process isn't just a "somewhat risky move". If we're going to break out the pitchforks, let's at least point them in the right direction: write your Congresscritters and tell them you want to see copyright law reform.