this post was submitted on 14 Jan 2024
256 points (96.7% liked)
Piracy: ꜱᴀɪʟ ᴛʜᴇ ʜɪɢʜ ꜱᴇᴀꜱ
54609 readers
434 users here now
⚓ Dedicated to the discussion of digital piracy, including ethical problems and legal advancements.
Rules • Full Version
1. Posts must be related to the discussion of digital piracy
2. Don't request invites, trade, sell, or self-promote
3. Don't request or link to specific pirated titles, including DMs
4. Don't submit low-quality posts, be entitled, or harass others
Loot, Pillage, & Plunder
📜 c/Piracy Wiki (Community Edition):
💰 Please help cover server costs.
Ko-fi | Liberapay |
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I guess a positive outcome of this might be people more seriously considering alternatives to Github. Something about MS owning the defacto developer platform never sounded good to me.
GitHub didn't do anything. This isn't because the code was taken down (it's still there, as are all the forks that are also perfectly legal); it's because the maintainers decided it wasn't worth putting up with big pocketed harassment to keep doing it.
Based on some other article I saw on this yesterday, my understanding was that GitHub was likely going to take them down for the BS DMCAs they were receiving, but maybe I misunderstood what I was reading.
GitHub (and everyone else) is required to follow the process laid out DMCA takedown requests. The uploader just has to submit a counterclaim, and they can put it back unless they actually go to court and file a lawsuit.
The whole process is dictated by the DMCA.
this doesn't have anything to do with github