I can't understand why anyone would use GitHub for anything DMCA-able when there's archive.org, mega, ipfs, i2p, and the new z-lib home. Perhaps some people believe it's equivalent to Gitee when it's not or are too lazy to put it somewhere that won't immediately dmcarot or linkrot.
> One early upload of more than 270,000 links appeared on GitHub and then took on a life of its own as contributors added to the database and created their own forks.
> A subsequent readme file suggests that the archive later contained over six million magnet links, possibly one of the largest collections ever seen.
Github has users and it’s trivial to contribute.
I don’t see why you wouldn’t host/mirror on GitHub even in light of this event since you can mine free contributions no matter where else you host it.
Could a hybrid approach work? [1] Add a "Login with Github" button on a forum or some other file sharing thing or some other self hosted repo platform.
It’s gone from the ipfs.io gateway but the CID is still available in the network. Take your own IPFS node (e.g. companion or Brave’s built-in) and you should be able to resolve it
Why would you watch a VHS rip over a higher quality encode of the series? Was the VHS a fansub or something? What is the benefit of all those VHS glitches and muddy muted colors and that blur on the bottom of the edges?
> Gitee was chosen by the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology of the Chinese government to make an "independent, open-source code hosting platform for China." [0]
erm, sounds like that would just swap one government's ideology of unsharable information with another government's. It's just not called DMCA. Those two do overlap, even in the most popular of cases like US movies, but for different reasons.
Because people already have github accounts. This makes the friction to contributors less than with other sites. I would still keep a mirror in another site.
I agree, this looks like a misuse of Github unless these magnet link archives were part of a software project. I'm fed up with people abusing this service for this stuff. Support piracy somewhere else.
Why is this legally allowed? Do they not have to prove that a hash belongs to copyrighted material? Also how is a hash of something equal to being the thing? Do copyrighted laws have specific sub-laws when it comes to digital media?
DMCA take down notices can be abused and there is no upshot for github to fight this in court, especially if the material are torrent links not any kind of software project
Most of this is irrelevant. The process is (more or less, read up on DMCA for details): someone sends notice, GH as a provider takes down content until counterclaim from the repo owner, then the 2 parties can battle it in court.
I doubt any repo owner will want to challenge anything here. Unless they have EFF behind them trying to prove a point or something like that.
Not complying with DMCA doesn’t directly get into legal trouble. It’s not a crime and doesn’t create (itself) any civil liability.
What it does do is forfeit a safe harbor defense against copyright infringement liability. Basically, as long as you comply with take down requests, you can’t be sued for copyright infringement unless you knew about it.
It’s part of a quid pro quo with online services that publish user content.
Other publishers are liable for what they publish even if they didn’t know about it.
Without the DMCA, Google would be liable for all the piracy that happens on the site.
This isn’t a criminal case so the process doesn’t involve guilt. It actually allows everyone to stay out of court. Unless the copyright holder then sues the uploader.
Has there been a clear decision whether links are covered by the DMCA/copyright law or not? If there has been a clear decision that they're not, counter-notifications could be effective.
Generally they take it down and -you- have to prove it's not protected under DMCA rules. They settle on the side that means they are least likely to be sued.
Also available at https://rarxd.lol (no new links added yet, just around 2.5 million links from the previous dumps). Looking into checking the health of each and every link.
It's abuse when it's being used to coordinate pirate video streams -- which, when a new user creates a HLS playlist as their very first action, is the most likely possibility.
The post is puzzled and thinks there’s a great mystery about what the infringed content was, but the DMCA Notice is crystal clear:
> The original copyrighted content is/was posted online at:
[private]
[private]
(*) There are various 18+ porn videos from these or other sites that I own that are directly linked in these files. These files are behind a paid membership area, so aren't fully available publicly.
So, what’s the puzzlement? That they redacted the actual titles?
The interesting part is the focus on the finger pointing at the magnet (which points at the torrent) Basically, citizens are not allowed to point at things.
The web is full of "$name (1970)" and there are also lots of torrents with those keywords. some will have "1080p" some "BluRay" some "X264" etc etc
In stead of sharing the magnet you can share "$name.1970.1080p.x264" and the recipient can pretty much find what you are talking about like "Steal This Film II.720p.mov"
Wait a bit for persecution to "mature" then evolve the format to use keywords like "wonderful","amazing","great","funny","western","horror",etc possibly in specific order to save ink while ignoring "it's","and","thats",etc
The adventure is more interesting than the recordings.
