Slashdot Mirror


DMCA Notices Remove 8,268 Projects On Github In 2015 (torrentfreak.com)

An anonymous reader writes: Github's transparency report for 2015 shows that the site received many DMCA notices that removed more than 8,200 projects. "In 2015, we received significantly more takedown notices, and took down significantly more content, than we did in 2014," Github reports. For comparison, the company received only 258 DMCA notices in 2014, 17 of which responded with a counter-notice or retraction. In 2015, they received 505 takedown notices, 62 of which were the subject of counters or withdrawals. TorrentFreak reports: "Copyright holders are not limited to reporting one URL or location per DMCA notice. In fact, each notice filed can target tens, hundreds, or even thousands of allegedly infringing locations." September was a particularly active month as it took down nearly 5,834 projects. "Usually, the DMCA reports we receive are from people or organizations reporting a single potentially infringing repository. However, every now and then we receive a single notice asking us to take down many repositories," Github explains. They are called 'Mass Removals' when more than 100 repositories are asked to be removed. "In all, fewer than twenty individual notice senders requested removal of over 90% of the content GitHub took down in 2015."

116 comments

  1. Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The DMCA is like the TSA:
    In the words of the head of El Al, "The TSA isn't security. It's an annoyance."
    The DMCA doesn't stop pirates, it just interferes with legit and acceptable things.

    1. Re:Yeah.... by zrobotics · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come on though, when I want the hottest new Hollywood movies or the freshest warez the first place I turn is github. Seriously, this is some weapons grade bullshit, I've never run into pirating on that site. I may have seen something that was patented, but I'm not sure that 20: print "Hello World" isn't covered by someone's patent anyway. If I sand round corners onto a block of wood, do I owe apple money?

    2. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      If I sand round corners onto a block of wood, do I owe apple money?

      Yes. In fact, you even owe them if you don't do anything with blocks of wood.

    3. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I see that many takedown notices I see it as a symptom of two problems.
      1 The DMCA is being badly misused and abused by many because such misuse and abuse is without penalty.

      2 People are tired of the RIAA/MPAA/Publishers trying to create an artificial shortage of content to increase profits while making it difficult and expensive for people to get the content they want, while also screwing the creators of the content out of any decent royalties.

      Digital copies of content are easy to create, and cost practically nothing to create, store and distribute over the Internet. People know this. People are willing to pay the artist, author, and creator of the content, we are just unwilling to pay parasitic middlemen who take the lions share of the profits!

    4. Re:Yeah.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is a user exhibiting developed software and the source code, too, for the purpose of giving harm to specific futaba-channel type bulletin board service but isn't it against a term of service of act GITHUB which exhibits such one?
      znk_project
      Developer's remark at 2channel (Japanese)

    5. Re:Yeah.... by mongothesecond · · Score: 1

      Someone probably got stepped on inappropriately, but. This last year a number of interns at at least 2 companies have posted internal code to github when they didnt get hired. At least four repackaged fraudulent mobile apps I know of were uploaded to github. Some actual problems are being solved with these takedowns.

  2. Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    On github, what constitutes being a valid target for a DMCA takedown?

    1. Re:Definition? by NotInHere · · Score: 2

      I don't know. If you "break" into a walled garden, as in try to create compatible software?

      http://boingboing.net/2014/02/...

    2. Re:Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you white? Are you male? Congratulations, ciscum! Here is your DMCA takedown notice.

    3. Re:Definition? by henni16 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The obvious case would be people using it like any other file(-sharing) host.
      I don't think there's much if anything stopping you from adding e.g. an archive containing a movie or a bunch of ebooks into a throw-away repository and linking it from somewhere else.

      Using Git might even make it easier to reupload stuff after one repo gets taken down - just add another remote to your source repo and push it.

    4. Re: Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ikr

    5. Re:Definition? by nmb3000 · · Score: 5, Informative

      On github, what constitutes being a valid target for a DMCA takedown?

      Well, you can look at the full list of DMCA complaints they have received and see for yourself.

      I randomly looked through them and many appear to be pretty reasonable. Many are related to simple copyright infringement, such as storing textbooks or published homework and test questions and answers. This isn't surprising, as GitHub is basically just a place you can store files.

      Some say the code or data is internal or non-public and was uploaded without permission. There are also a bunch from Qualcomm complaining about firmware images and driver code. VMWare complained about internal roadmap documentation.

      Some are just files with links to other materials, such as TV shows and movies. Sony and Marvel make appearances.

      The line blurs some for others. There are HTML5 versions of classic games, such as ones from Nintendo and Blizzard, that got pulled down. A few companies appear to have searched GitHub for serial numbers and license keys of their products, and requested the entire repo be pulled if it contains a single file with a serial number in it. Many of these appear to be honest mistakes and have counter-notices.

      In any case, it's nice to see GitHub being transparent. The DMCA requests themselves are pretty interesting, but since the vast majority of the targeted repos are no longer accessible, it's hard to gauge how justifiable most of the complains really were.

      --
      "What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
      /)
    6. Re:Definition? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't even need a DMCA notice for that. They do it themselves and cite some vague ToS clause.

      Oh how I wish I was born a transgender black woman. It would certainly open a lot of doors and job prospects.

    7. Re:Definition? by tomxor · · Score: 1

      ...In any case, it's nice to see GitHub being transparent. The DMCA requests themselves are pretty interesting, but since the vast majority of the targeted repos are no longer accessible, it's hard to gauge how justifiable most of the complains really were.

      My thoughts exactly... when looking though that list, almost all of them can be normalised to be meaningless:

      • - Unspecified infringing content at URL which is no longer accessible
      • - Signed REDACTED

      The only ones that you can glean any information from are where the file URLs have been given instead of entire repo URLs.

  3. Solution -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Don't host anything in the US. Ever.

    Host your projects in more liberal countries like Russia or China.

    1. Re:Solution -- by Yvan256 · · Score: 1

      Given the results of our last elections, I'd say Canada is a pretty Liberal country.

    2. Re: Solution -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Clinton type liberal but more stupid.

    3. Re:Solution -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      When we use "liberal" as an adjective we mean as in liberty. It's not our problem that the Americans don't know what liberty is and just define "liberal" to be "progressive".

    4. Re:Solution -- by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When Americans think of "libertarian" they think "Libertarian" and they are somehow lapdogs of the GOP/DNC. They are way too polarized while their elected officials are anti-liberty, which their sheeple think is a good thing until it is their liberties at stake then they bitch. Otherwise it's "I have mine and how can I screw others out of what is theirs."

    5. Re:Solution -- by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That isn't bad advice, actually. Most of the copyright trolls seem to be in the US, so if you host your stuff in another country it saves you a lot of bother with DMCA notices. I responded to the first few I got but then just started ignoring them.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Solution -- by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      >When Americans think of "libertarian"

      So what do you want them to think then ? Classic-libertarian ? That would be anti-government, anti-business socialist anarchism !

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  4. And it'll only get worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Each and every crooked piece of bought-off shit that voted to pass this abomination need to be drawn, quartered, and put on display.

    1. Re:And it'll only get worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you'd rather that ISPs and websites have no safe harbor protections?

    2. Re:And it'll only get worse by Narcocide · · Score: 3, Informative

      Believe it or not, this comment section here on Slashdot existed LONG before the DMCA, which helped it NOT ONCE.

    3. Re:And it'll only get worse by Narcocide · · Score: 2

      The safe harbor protections were already in place before the DMCA. All the DMCA did was weaken them, actually.

    4. Re:And it'll only get worse by Mister+Transistor · · Score: 1

      Everybody knows it was Al Gore who invented all that shit!

      Not some fucking arcane, misbegotten piece of Big Media purchased and paid-for legislation.

      And yeah, the web was really boring before it was wall to wall scams and advertising, thank the gods for the DMCA which changed all that.

      --
      -- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
    5. Re:And it'll only get worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they weren't. If you're gonna claim ofherwise please cite the specific statute.

    6. Re:And it'll only get worse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One year is LONG before?

  5. My icon... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    I had a 16x16 icon of a question mark that a popular project was using that had forked several thousandth times... I made my request and they were all taken down. Justice served!

    1. Re:My icon... by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      +1 underrated, +1 funny

  6. I don't publish my code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Suck my balls.

    1. Re:I don't publish my code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't always publish my code.... but when I do, I suck my balls after drinking Dos Equis

    2. Re:I don't publish my code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I suck my balls after drinking Dos Equis

      But is it gluten free..?

  7. Thank you President Clinton by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The DMCA has been such a blessing to our family (my wife is also a lawyer).

  8. Commercial source code, copyrighted graphcs, etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    GitHub actually them available online: https://github.com/github/dmca

    Some of them are like someone using one of Adobe's .svg graphics or a commercial script file or source code file being distributed.

    And some of them are abuse. Like this: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2016-01-15-AlgoTrader.md and they did license their source code under the GPL as shown here at the bottom https://web.archive.org/web/20140208002555/http://code.google.com/p/algo-trader/

    So it looks like most DMCA takedown requests are legitimate, but presumably a small percent are abuse.

  9. What is being taken down? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is it classic software projects that are being taken down, or is it something else like movies or videos that are wrapped in some software modules to make them appear as something else?

    1. Re:What is being taken down? by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Actually probably just a bunch of petty Adobe lawyers getting entire useful projects taken down because the noobs writing the software didn't realize all those nice pretty fancy fonts shipped with Photoshop and Illustrator are not free for re-use.

  10. counter notice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I was one of those counter notices. An ex business partner tried to claim ownership of my work, after I pulled my code from the project. Github disabled and then re-enabled my repository, within 1 week of sending in a counter notice. The person claiming infringement profited from my work without giving me a cent. He failed to file against me in court, as he was as broke as I am and had no merit to his claims.

    1. Re: counter notice by hackwrench · · Score: 1

      Modern app appers?

  11. Can we see the actual notices? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

    These transparency reports are quite informative. But I'd love to see the actual removals. At some pont, we need to see if the removals have any validity or not. We just can't tell from this data. Is there any legal reason they can't be publicly posted? Actually, I wonder if the DMCA should *require* that they be public, so that the public at-large knows who the bullies are, or maybe who the jerks who keep copying people's stuff are. If you don't want your notice public, don't file it.

    1. Re:Can we see the actual notices? by Myen · · Score: 3, Informative

      For the DMCA takedowns, yes we can - they are at https://github.com/github/dmca (it's in the second-to-last paragraph). I don't think they're allowed to for the NSLs. I didn't spot any listings for other forms of takedowns.

      It appears that the massive majority (>5000, according to https://github.com/github/dmca... ) is one project; judging by Google results of the repo name, it's some Chinese e-commerce site's source code. Not sure why people would be so interested in forking it that there's that many copies floating around...

    2. Re:Can we see the actual notices? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They need to publish names of those making the requests.

  12. How many false claims? by lapm · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I wonder how many of those takedowns were done under false claim. Meaning its fraudlent DMCA takedown request... In youtube they match all sort of shit for DMCA takedown making sometimes just unbelievable claims. What chances does small person or developer to really challenge those false claims. Example in my country its perfectly legal to reverse engineer software and make compatible software. Our law also docent know shit like DMCA and hopefully newer will.

    1. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does your country also not know how to form cogent sentences?

    2. Re: How many false claims? by slazzy · · Score: 2

      I just had a youtube video taken over by a music company, automatically taking my adsense revenue. The shitty part is the music I was using was youtubes own copyright free music!

      --
      Website Just Down For Me? Find out
    3. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      False claims are very rare since they're made under the threat of perjury.

    4. Re:How many false claims? by ATMAvatar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      DMCA full text

      The DMCA contains the word perjury twice: once in relation to the person making the claim, and once in relation to the person making a counter-claim:

      (vi) A statement that the information in the notification is accurate, and under penalty of perjury, that the complaining party is authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly in-fringed.

      You'll note that the only statement subject to perjury is that the claimant is authorized to act on behalf of a rights owner. The first half, about accuracy, is not subject to the same penalty. The prior section (v) mentions that a statement must be made that there is a good faith belief that the subject of the claim is infringing, but it makes no mention of any penalties if this is untrue.

      There is some token language later on about misrepresentation - that the claimant is liable for any damages incurred by the alleged infringer should the claimant knowingly misrepresent that the material is infringing. However, proving there was intentional misrepresentation is a pretty high bar, and in most cases, the damages are low enough as to be not worth the legal fight anyways.

      --
      "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
    5. Re: How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pics, or it didn't happen.

    6. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Does your country also not know how to form cogent sentences?"

      Like the US Judiciary, you mean?

    7. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It looks like you are trying to say "coherent." Would you like help?

    8. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No they're not. People have been trying to get it in but with little success, probably because it would prevent filing thousands hit-or-miss requests every day as some big firms currently do That's one of the big problems with the DMCA, there's no real punishment for filing false claims. Go read the actual text if you don't believe me.

    9. Re:How many false claims? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The part under pain of perjury is the part where the notice sender claims that there is a copyrighted work, and that the sender either holds the copyright or represents the copyright holder. The other part, the infringement claim, is not under pain of perjury. It really can't be, since the DMCA does have to have room for mistakes. If there is a mistaken claim, the poster is supposed to file a counter-claim.

      This has gone wrong in two ways. First, many places that host user-provided content don't care about counter-claims, since they're not worried about their users suing them. Second, organizations shotgun DMCA notices against nearly random content, for bad reasons or none at all.

      If I were to send a DMCA notice, I would have to cite something I had the copyright on, like a blog post or story, or I'd be committing perjury. I could send a notice on content completely unrelated to my blog post and still stay legal.

      It would be better if there was some category analogous to vexatious litigation, so that companies would be penalized for sending out too many invalid notices.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    10. Re:How many false claims? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You'll note that the only statement subject to perjury is that the claimant is authorized to act on behalf of a rights owner. The first half, about accuracy, is not subject to the same penalty. The prior section (v) mentions that a statement must be made that there is a good faith belief that the subject of the claim is infringing, but it makes no mention of any penalties if this is untrue.

      Certainly the right to not have one's time wasted is a right "retained by the people" under the 9th Amendment, both as a fundamental right in any free country, and also as a consequence of the right to ethical practice of law (another 9th Amendment Right). After all, lawyers serve as intermediaries in many situation where people don't want their time wasted, and thus are in a position of ethical conflict of interest with respect to creating and upholding laws and precedents that waste people's time.

      Thus, to the extent that the DMCA fails to make it clear that wasting people's time is an illegal act, it is an illegal law - of course, this is just one of the ways in which this law violates fundamental rights. The lawyers and lawmakers involved in writing and upholding such a law can be presumed to be incompetent and/or unethical.

      Whether or not the DMCA makes this clear, wasting people's time as a result of sending bogus DMCA notices is nevertheless an illegal act.

      Depriving people of their rights "under the color of law" is actionable as both a criminal violation of the law, and a civil violation.

      Of course, given the massive ethical conflict of interest the US legal profession has with respect to the 9th Amendment, in practice it is very difficult to proceed in any situation involving violation of these rights. As a result, the US legal system is riddled with laws and precedents that violate fundamental rights, and there are huge numbers of violations of 9th Amendment rights occurring every single year as a result.

      In short, the folks doing bogus DMCA transactions are sheltering under the expectation that unethical practice of law will prevent them ever being called to account for their actions. It's not all that different from the thinking driving decision-making at the NSA and the FBI.

  13. Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    I have a theory that the DMCA and other similar legislation were written by Reptilians decades in advance, placed in a drawer, and pulled out years later. They planned many (but not all) of the paths taken and knew what was to come.

    That is the US. Overseas, they are hard at work on other matters. Take, for instance, that shockwaves are reverberating around the Kremlin today as word spreads regarding an extraordinary meeting called by Vladimir Putin yesterday where, according to sources, the Russian president said that “95% of the world’s ruling class are not even human,” but are “cold-blooded hybrids” who are “members of an ancient cult.”

    Did Putin just out the world’s political and financial elite as cold-blooded hybrid human reptilians? Did he really just go there?

    Speaking at a behind closed doors forum for the highest echelons of government and staff in his home city of St. Petersburg, Putin responded to questions about the Panama Papers leak by pointing out who was behind the plot: the U.S. government, their spy agencies, and George Soros’s OCCRP.

    Putin slammed his fist on the table and exclaimed, “George Soros, you sly dragon, this is war,” according to sources close to the President. Putin then vowed to ramp up sanctions against Soros’s Open Society even further.

    When questioned by a top aide as to what he meant by “dragon” (an unusual word in Russian), Putin sighed heavily and fixed the assembled group with his trademark stare before explaining that all is not what it seems in regards to how the world is run.

    Resisting gentle attempts by close aides to stop the President ‘going there,’ Putin said that the evidence was everywhere, and that he personally had intimate knowledge of their dealings. He said that he was not one of them, but they are afraid of him and have attempted to lure him into their “ancient Babylonian cult.”

    “The evidence, ancient and modern, is enormous,” he said.

    Putin said that mankind has been manipulated to become “unconscious” through the use of programming by media and politics, the perfect example of which was the recent Panama Papers leak. The world’s ruling class have tyrannical control over our food, water, and air supply, and they are actively dumbing down the masses.

    1. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Narcocide · · Score: 1

      Cool story, bro. Your talents are being wasted here.

    2. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm, I'm offended by the use of the word "bro". It implies the image of a white misogynist male and I started feeling oppressed. You should at least add a trigger warning before you post insensitive words like that.

    3. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cool story, faggot.

    4. Re:Written by the Reptilians by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Is that you David Icke?

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    5. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm part of the LGBT community and I'm deeply offended by that remark. How dare you! I demand Slashdot release an immediate apology, instead of you who actually said it!

    6. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      John May lives!

    7. Re:Written by the Reptilians by WallyL · · Score: 1

      Wow, this guy's talking to himself!

    8. Re: Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The term Trigger Warning is a microaggression and needs a pre trigger warning.

    9. Re:Written by the Reptilians by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I only dance with myself. No words needed.

  14. Re:Commercial source code, copyrighted graphcs, et by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What's up with the AlgoTrader ass-hat? He created an open source project (he admits it was an open source project), discontinued it, and now is filing DMCA claims against people who kept a copy and forked it? Does this moron not understand what "open source" means? He should be countersued into the ground.

  15. "Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Kunedog · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why only list DMCAs? Because they're a special subset of cases that sometimes makes Github look like the good guy? How about listing the repos they forced offline themselves for petty ideological reasons?

    The 2014 report failed to list the takedown of the Gamergate hub, and this 2015 report doesn't mention how Github took down WebMConverter to strongarm the developer into changing its content.

    Instead of using a broad, feel-good word like "transparency," they should just call it the DMCA report since that's the one specific kind of censorship it discloses.

    1. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      GitHub has gone full retard.

    2. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I laughed out loud. Seriuosly, they took down a project because its *official* name is "WebM for Retards"? That's fucking retarded! I wonder what they'd think if they saw Linux's kernel commentary (here's a few samples):

      /* master list of VME vectors -- don't fuck with this */

      If you don't see why, please stay the fuck away from my code.

      /* Only Sun can take such nice parts and fuck up the programming interface
        * like this. Good job guys...

      My favorite:

      /* EHCI_HRTIMER_POLL_ASS */

      Not an expert, but I think that one polls someone's ass at given intervals.

    3. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you agree that a program shouldn't have the word "retard" in its name? SJW much?

    4. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What did you expect from a site that calls itself a hub for gits?

    5. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love it how people like you amass to speak out how you're so offended about something you either know nothing about or have nothing to do with. This is about GitHub removing a project that was named "WebM for Retards". It's not known whether someone ever even complained about the name, they simply told the project owner to either change the name or have the project site indefinitely closed.

      And before that it refused to be drawn into a pointless flamewar?

      GitHub is the one who started the whole stupid flamewar about something absolutely pointless non-issue. They decided to be offended on other people's behalf for no obvious reason. Next I suppose they're going to ban projects that mention something akin to "fire retardant" in their project files. In fact, they could've used some fire retardant on their flaming heads before pulling the plug on that project.

      It's obvious we live dark times with people and organizations feeling the urge to be policing moral issues they have absolutely nothing to do with. It's now always a race for who's the most offended and who has least common sense. There's always a lynch mob waiting behind the corner, ready to jump on the next target.

    6. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The GamerGate repository was removed for TOS violations, specifically that it was being used to collect information used to harass and dox people. Interestingly it also rather gave the game away for GamerGate; the readme.md file didn't mention ethics in journalism until several paragraphs down. Instead it started with a rant about feminism.

      As for WebM, they were asked to remove the word "retards", and did so. It really helps if you explain these things so that people can make up their own minds as to if it was justified. It's almost as if you were hoping they wouldn't bother to check.

      In any case, those things were not included in the transparency report because they were widely reported (i.e. already transparent). The transparency report is a list of otherwise non-public requests from outside parties.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They seem to agree that github can make the determination whether to host it based on the name, which makes perfect sense.

    8. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interestingly it also rather gave the game away for GamerGate;

      Wrap it up, some people did X therefore everyone did. It's not like you can prevent anyone from being a part of a self defined group.

    9. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

      SJW

      It's too early to start drinking.

      --
      Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
      Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    10. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      My favorite: /* EHCI_HRTIMER_POLL_ASS */

      What about "fuck me gently with a chainsaw"?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    11. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by ultranova · · Score: 2

      I love it how people like you amass to speak out how you're so offended about something you either know nothing about or have nothing to do with.

      I am threatened by people diluting the word "censorship" by using it in contexts which aren't censorship, thus making it harder for me to defend myself should I, or someone who's message matters to the society I live in, ever be targeted for actual censorship.

      This is about GitHub removing a project that was named "WebM for Retards".

      And GitHub has every right to do so. Or do you disagree?

      Next I suppose they're going to ban projects that mention something akin to "fire retardant" in their project files.

      And if they do, what business of yours is that? Avoid your host's triggers or pay for your own server.

      It's obvious we live dark times with people and organizations feeling the urge to be policing moral issues they have absolutely nothing to do with.

      Do people and organizations not have the right to control their own property, and what causes they're associated with? Do you think you should be able to dictate what content someone else's website must host?

      There's always a lynch mob waiting behind the corner, ready to jump on the next target.

      Who was lynched? Do you wish to dilute that term, too? Or do you simply think your argument can't stand on its own without absurd hyperbole?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    12. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      And GitHub has every right to do so. Or do you disagree?

      Do people and organizations not have the right to control their own property, and what causes they're associated with? Do you think you should be able to dictate what content someone else's website must host?

      I think this is a very dangerous mindset and it's mentioned when people argue about content on private websites. You remember when Facebook was found out to be tampering with conservative news articles and effectively preventing them from appearing on the trending news list? Based on your premise this is acceptable behavior.

      Things like this may be legal, but it doesn't mean they are acceptable.

      --
      -SR
    13. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, let the alt-right basement troll special snowflake man child shit dribble flow.

      Nice reply: Github is a private entity and has no obligation to serve as a platform to spread your opinions.

      Blunt reply: If you support or were party to Gamergate, you are a bad person. Full stop. Your "opinions" are considered hate speech and are subject to the legalities therof. Nobody wants your damaged, hateful, bigoted, deranged shit. Nobody want to see it, wants to be party of it, or wants to be held legally liable if the lawsuits start flying. Your notion of self importance is greatly inflated. Nobody likes you. Nobody cares. Go away.

    14. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Would you feel the same way if it was a bakery that refused to put two husbands and write two male names on a cake because they found it offensive?

      If you are for GitHub censoring other peoples speech, you should be for a bakery doing the same thing. We don't want your kind around here ;)

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    15. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      So, I assume you are ok with a bakery censoring what they write on cakes then? You should be perfectly fine with a baker saying they refuse to write two male (or female) names on a cake and putting two husbands (of wives) on a cake. This is the same thing after all, and a private company should be allowed to self sensor what people can do on their premises.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    16. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      You sir are a special snowflake...Supporting ethics in game journalism is now considered hate speech, I have seen it all.

      Also, since you support Github being able to not be a platform to spread things they find offensive, I am sure you support bakers refusing to sell cakes to homosexuals, after all, a private entity shouldn't be forced to write things they find offensive.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    17. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Takedowns due to philosophical disagreement or policy/disciplinary reasons should remain private unless the targeted party agrees to publicize the issue. It's like disciplinary action being handled privately at work---it's best done quietly so the matter can remain confidential if desired. If someone believes the philosophy is wrong, they can always go public on their own anyway.

      Gamergate was a trash "movement" and doesn't deserve free hosting anywhere. Oh, the media covering video games isn't catering to my preferences or operating according to my standards? Well, stop visiting those sites.

      And, yeah, we're not supposed to call things "retarded" anymore according to Github. Github can decide what's acceptable on Github. It's their site and their rules. Maybe they require more decorum than Slashdot. Don't go there if that's a problem for you.

      DMCA is serious though because you can't just opt out of it. The US legal system will enforce it. So reporting on how it's used and who is affected is important.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    18. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      That's not censorship, that's discrimination which is illegal. Gender and sexual orientation are protected from discrimination when providing a commercial service. Posting racism on a forum that has stated it wishes to to maintain certain standards of decency and non-discriminatory language is not legally protected.

      Your understanding of this issue is simplistic and childish.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps trying to organize a movement promoting ethics around a hashtag isn't just a great idea. I mean, if you are calling for journalists to police themselves, but set your own organization up so that it can't be policed because anyone can "join" by typing a few characters, well maybe you should reconsider your plan.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    20. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      I believe the developer can name his program whatever he wants.

      I believe Github can decide whether they will host a program with "retard" in its name.

      I believe anyone can use a program with "retard" in its name if they want---although I would never do so in a professional setting.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    21. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 2

      https://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qan...

      Not exactly. The bakeries are not discriminating for a job, so the Office of Personnel management interpretation of the discrimination laws does not apply.

      Your understanding of this issue is entirely based upon your feelings about the specific incident, and not by equality under the law. You are the one who seems to be being simplistic and childish as you have this whole opinion that laws should have favorites. Either we are all protected equally, or the law provides no protection.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    22. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      You remember when Facebook was found out to be tampering with conservative news articles and effectively preventing them from appearing on the trending news list?

      I don't know that it was ever proven to be deliberate behavior, but they are allowed to do it regardless.

      Based on your premise this is acceptable behavior.

      Acceptability is a personal decision. With most unacceptable things, you can either opt out, ignore it, or setup an alternative.

      Things like this may be legal, but it doesn't mean they are acceptable.

      If it is legal and you are free to opt out, then there isn't really a problem. Opt out.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    23. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Sax+Russell+5449D29A · · Score: 1

      I don't know that it was ever proven to be deliberate behavior, but they are allowed to do it regardless.

      If it is legal and you are free to opt out, then there isn't really a problem. Opt out.

      So you see no moral issues with the largest social media site with 1.60+ billion users manipulating the news its users see?

      Acceptability is a personal decision. With most unacceptable things, you can either opt out, ignore it, or setup an alternative.

      Yes, that has worked well in the operating system arena with Microsoft throwing their whole weight against competitors.

      You could also legally call someone names on the street, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable nor that the community should tolerate it.

      --
      -SR
    24. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      Wrap it up, some people did X therefore everyone did. It's not like you can prevent anyone from being a part of a self defined group.

      If harassment and doxing were present in the files on the Gamergate repository, then Github's objective analysis of their repo was correct. It violated the TOS, and therefore it was removed. Github is a code repository, so it wasn't even an appropriate platform for organizing social action to begin with.

      It doesn't matter what the Gamergate "movement" claims to be about; it matters that the Gamergate supporters on Github engaged in inappropriate conduct.

      I do believe that 99% of Gamergate supporters are assclowns. Github discovered evidence supporting this attitude, which I find personally gratifying.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    25. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      But they allow https://github.com/GNOME/gimp so what's the problem?

    26. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by EndlessNameless · · Score: 1

      So you see no moral issues with the largest social media site with 1.60+ billion users

      Nope. I opted out of Facebook a long time ago. Because I can do that, there is no moral issue.

      When it comes to bias, Fox News is worse, and I do nothing aside from changing the channel.

      Yes, that has worked well in the operating system arena with Microsoft throwing their whole weight against competitors.

      There are alternatives. Good ones, too.

      If enterprise organizations choose not to use these alternatives, then Microsoft will exist for a very long time regardless of what happens in the home and SOHO markets.

      You could also legally call someone names on the street

      To a point.

      If the recipient opts out by attempting to end the interaction, the aggressor can usually be cited for disorderly conduct, assault, or harassment if he continues to follow and harangue the person.

      it doesn't mean it's acceptable nor that the community should tolerate it

      The law specifies what the community tolerates in the sense that people can freely engage in any legal behavior.

      Whether another individual should accept the behavior is an entirely different matter, and there are always social and economic consequences privately.

      In the case of Facebook, they lose users as a source of advertising revenue and data if they act inappropriately.

      --

      ---
      According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    27. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Organize? I don't think GamerGate ever tried or intended to organize or be some sort of organization. It's not so much as a movement as it is general consumer revolt.

      Take for example slashdot's 2 minute hate sprees on MS, or Google, or Apple, or any particular company who's doing something stupid/evil/both. There's no organized movement to hate on them. People (consumers) just happen to all share a disdain and they show up to vent.

      Treating GamerGate like some sort of organized movement is something its detractors like to do, as most detractors are themselves organized political movements who are used to engaging in identity politics and fight other political movements. So when they see GG, they thought they were facing another competing movement that they're used to fighting, but it really isn't.

      This is why GG, despite all this time, is still something that gets brought up once in a while. Because GG isn't an organized movement, and anybody can use the hashtag again at any time, you can't ever truly kill it like an organized movement.

      On the flip side, this is the reason feminism and the social justice movements are failing, with conservatives and anti-feminists gaining more and more support (e.g rise of Trump, Brexit). When you failed to correctly identify your opponent, the strategies and tactics you choose to use will not work effective on it, if not backfire on you.

    28. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Facebook dominates its market. If I'm to keep in contact with some of my friends electronically, I need to be on Facebook. (Some of them no longer use email.) If Facebook does something offensive, I can't get the benefits of a social network anywhere else.

      Github is a hosting site. Anyone halfway competent could put up another pretty much trivially, maybe on Amazon Web Services, and it would host perfectly well. When Sourceforge got less attractive, people simply went over to Github and whatever that primarily Mercurial site was that I'm blanking out on.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    29. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      My understanding of the details primarily comes from the Finding of Facts in the court ruling, personally. The ruling said that the bakery had practiced illegal discrimination to start with, and had gone on to encourage online harassment.

      Laws are normally passed either to solve an existing problem or to grandstand. The LGBQ community was having discrimination problems, and many states altered their anti-discrimination laws to include sexual orientation. This does in fact protect anybody, as no business in those states can discriminate against me for being heterosexual. (Yeah, this echos Anatole France's comment that the law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges and steal bread.)

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    30. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Unless things have changed since I paid any attention to game journalism, finding ethics was pretty much impossible, and supporting ethics was something like voting for the Unicorn Fairy party.

      Github does not exist to spread things at all, and the only thing I'm likely to find offensive is COBOL projects. Github exists to host projects, and excludes what they consider illegitimate projects on a case-by-case basis. A bakery exists to make and sell baked goods, and in that state it was illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Discrimination based on a broad category is different from not serving individuals. If the couple had engaged in bad behavior, the bakery would have refused their order on that basis, and there would be no problem.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    31. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a victim of your own madness. Don't drag us down with you.

      You are being contained for own good, but mostly for the good of others.

    32. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because you are the one who chooses who is mad and who needs to be contained. Keep it up AC, I'm sure they are coming for you next.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    33. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coren apk contained you easily making you eat your words https://slashdot.org/comments.... and you now use weak 'signature bitch tactics' projecting your butthurt for all to see too? Please. Hahahaha.

    34. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      Aww, poor APK isn't getting enough attention and needs to bring up old arguments he lost in some kind of attempt to be vindicated. Keep up the good "security" work, you make all the rest of us look like geniuses.

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
    35. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Coren22 on /. with smoke pouring out of your ass after apk reamed it https://slashdot.org/comments.... Looks like you need preparation H boy for your butthurt signature after that hahahaha!

    36. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facebook's stock value is 114.29 as of writing this. Can you come back with GitHub's stock price? I think you're hilariously confused as to what constitutes 'private' in this sense.

    37. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could also legally call someone names on the street, but it doesn't mean it's acceptable nor that the community should tolerate it.

      Sorry, if we're walking down 6th street after a night of drinking and you can't stop screaming the word "FUCKING RETARDED" "THEY'RE RETARDED", we're not going to be seen together again. GitHub feels the same way, strangely enough.

    38. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am *ABSOLUTELY* for private companies reserving the right to refuse service to anyone. If they do so in a way that violates the mores of the community, then the community has a responsibility to force them to change.

    39. Re:"Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspots by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      That would be because the two lists are fundamentally different things. The first is things they are required to do by law. The second is something they do, on their property, based on their own policies.

      The former is an unnacceptable intrusion on liberty. The latter IS liberty at work.

      You may not like their policies, that's your right - and there are many other code hosts with different policies, but they have every right to have those policies. And not wanting to host content for mysoginistic dickbags on their property is really a freedom that everybody has and with damn good reason. You don't get to complain about them removing gamergate unless you are personally happy to let feminists spraypaint slogans on your living room wall. Even then you just removed the hypocricy - you didn't gain any legal right to tell others what to allow on THEIR property.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
  16. Re:Commercial source code, copyrighted graphcs, et by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems you are correct. https://github.com/curtiszimmerman/AlgoTrader

  17. there should be an equivalent of github on darknet by e70838 · · Score: 1

    that would contain only the projects censured by DMCA.

  18. When did they get time travel? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    DMCA Notices Remove 8,268 Projects On Github In 2015

    I think the real news is that they have a time machine.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
  19. Sorry, we had to truncate this directory to 1,000 by tepples · · Score: 1

    GitHub has stopped listing new ones:

    Sorry, we had to truncate this directory to 1,000 files. 322 entries were omitted from the list.

  20. 10 complainants sent 90% of notices, like patents by raymorris · · Score: 1

    That's a lot of DMCA notices, more than I would expect. But perhaps this explains why:

    "In all, fewer than twenty individual notice senders requested removal of over 90% of the content GitHub took down in 2015."

    Seems my prediction didn't count on those ten people who sent most of them. The "90% by 10 people" figure is similar to patent law suits. About four or five "companies" file over half the patent law suits in the US.

    I wonder, though. Other commenters who looked at the DMCA notices say most of them seem legit. I wonder if the large numbers of notices filed by those ten people were legit, or if they are DMCA trolls.

  21. Re:there should be an equivalent of github on dark by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Rather than darknet, try IPFS, pin the files and mirror, mirror, mirror.

    http://ipfs.io

    Neocities also offers an experimental public IPFS service:

    https://neocities.org/

  22. Re: "Transparency" Report Features a Few Blindspot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I suppose the only recourse for bakers who feel their religious beliefs are being trampled on is to fuck up the spelling on the cakes every time.