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