1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was.
2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request
3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why this happened
I'm guessing maybe there are some articles/forums/etc. that have some more context. If so, you should submit links to those instead. If not, and you just want to bring attention to this, submit a text submission to explain more details around what's going on.
Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd.
If you have an actual better source then by all means, share it. I'm sure dang will consider swapping it.
There is not even proof/details it was a DMCA takedown request. Given the subject matter, of course wouldn't be surprised, but all you are going to get in the comments is pure speculation/blathering because there is simply no information about what's going on.
https://archive.org/details/github.com-iptv-org-iptv_-_2022-...
https://old.reddit.com/r/IPTV/comments/j1l8ps/iptvorg_hit_wi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201117192948if_/https://codelo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220925054954if_/https://iptv-o...
The parent honestly believes that this takedown is not copyright-related. Thought experiment: What are the other ways a repository containing only URLs could violate Github ToS.
Doesn't sound like it.
When I clicked on the link and saw the placeholder page, I was wondering "wtf did anyone bother submitting this useless link?". My expectation was the link would have been to the DMCA notice sent to GitHub, which would have been more useful.
Next step was to look for further info in the HN thread instead.
Anyway, while your post has some useful links, the parent's post is also correct and it's a bit crappy to claim things about it which aren't actually in it.
>Collection of publicly available IPTV (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world.
I'm not asking the submitter to editorialize the headline, which is what is frowned upon. In fact, the headline already is editorialized, because it says this was a DMCA takedown, but there is no evidence to support that. I'm asking to either:
1. Submit to an article source that actually has more information.
2. Submit a text submission, where it's fine to add details of what's going on, or even to ask for more information. E.g. this happens all the time for users who were cut off from some service, then they explain the situation and ask for assistance.
https://github.com/github/dmca/tree/master/2023/02
That being said, the most recent dated one was 23rd Feb (last Thursday), so it does seem possible there might be a lag of a few days for stuff to show up. Not real sure though.
For example: https://github.com/dts50/dts50.github.io
9 days with no response, is a surefire way to force any professional group off your host, and embroil yourself in bad press, and potential litigation. That said the group may not be that professional but they deserve a timely response.
Can't say for sure but this sure looks and sounds more like potential antitrust violations/issues on the MS/Github side, than DMCA stuff.
I mean the silence speaks absolute volumes, and companies that do this to free customers will do this to paying customers. There is no financial benefit to doing this and keeping quiet, only damage.
Everyone in business knows the classic age-old wisdom, what you do in small things that don't matter, dictates how you handle big things when real risks are on the line.
They haven't clarified or communicated with the maintainers aside from vague boilerplate which doesn't say or point to any reasonable knowledge of what their (customers) did wrong.
So, just what everyone has been saying for years as opinion (but confirmed now). You can't use Github for anything where you need a professional response.
All I can see from the link is that the repo was taken down due to a terms of service violation. If there is more info/details/etc. about why this repo was taken down, would be nice if there were some links to that instead. Get's kinda frustrated that article submitters think we're somehow privy to the same "inside baseball" as they are, without providing any more information.
Maintainers had commented, said they had an open ticket but no response, and didn't know what was going on, and the ticket was 9 days old. That's where it came from.
the owner of the repo that has been taken down can file a counterclaim (that may not be the word, I am not a lawyer) which the original DMCA-thrower must respond to within 10 days. if they do not respond in 10 days, or the response is insufficient in some way, the repo goes back up.
this whole time there is nothing GitHub can say to anyone that changes anything, and they would be foolish to comment on ongoing legal disputes, anyway.
most repos come back up after 10 days, I imagine, especially the ones taken down by unjust claims.
so, just because it's been 9 days with no communication means exactly nothing.
the law mandates this process, and GitHub must follow it.
The problem is that the DMCA is designed to explicitly allow and encourage weaponisation of fraudulent take down claims. Specifically in GH doesn’t obey the DMCA and pull the repo the DMCA makes them legally liable for the alleged infringement. Why would they take on that risk for any random organization/project that likely can’t afford the legal costs?
Not a lot of incentives to do so though because if they are incorrect about it they just took on a lot of liability.
https://docs.github.com/en/site-policy/content-removal-polic...
I'm just gonna quote GitHub "The DMCA requires that you swear to the facts in your copyright complaint under penalty of perjury. It is a federal crime to intentionally lie in a sworn declaration. (See U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1621.) Submitting false information could also result in civil liability — that is, you could get sued for money damages. The DMCA itself provides for damages against any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material or activity is infringing. "
Most cases these days, you pay for the value add features (differentiation strategy) but the base ... (free) is in most cases monetized through alternate strategies. It is how they can cover costs to provide free to anyone that wants to sign up.
Unless you have a written SLA that makes guarantees, with firm timetables, you most likely aren't getting what you think you bought.
What makes you think this is DMCA when no notice is posted, and the posts on the discussion forum from the maintainers show it was for breach of TOS which hasn't been elaborated on by GitHub staff 9 days later...
Punitive towards individuals and small businesses.
From what I can see, it seems to be a curated list of IPTV sources [1]
Which puts it in search engine activity territory.
I'm reminded that Github stood up to the UK's City of London Police who issued a DMCA for the PirateBay Proxy on GitHub. [2]
However Law can be used to resource burn entities where no compensation for failed legal attempts exist as the City of London Police demonstrated with their actions.
[1] https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0Ku53I... [2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34659768
I've had a game server emulator project DMCA-ed previously, and my team's casual research couldn't come up with any solutions. Despite the takedown's text being factually incorrect (it was all rewritten code, not proprietary), there seemed to be no one to appeal to. Instead, we just moved it off GitHub with no further negative consequences. This resulted in some lost visibility and broken links though.
In theory, you could provide a counter notice, and Github says they will reenable repos after two weeks of a counter notice unless the claimed owner provides Github with notice of a lawsuit. But you may want to get legal advice before you do this.
Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case.
Is there some "small claims" type of court where that would do that with minimal cost for the damaged person? I know way too many people who posted stuff on youtube that was either clear fair use or clearly not the copyrighted content, but youtubes automatic ID of music muted or removed their videos... If each of those could start a process for eg. $100, and got their $100 back + all the lost monetization (not a lot, but doesn't matter), companies would quickly change the way they operate.
> No video files are stored in this repository. The repository simply contains user-submitted links to publicly available video stream URLs, which to the best of our knowledge have been intentionally made publicly by the copyright holders. If any links in these playlists infringe on your rights as a copyright holder, they may be removed by sending a pull request or opening an issue. However, note that we have no control over the destination of the link, and just removing the link from the playlist will not remove its contents from the web. Note that linking does not directly infringe copyright because no copy is made on the site providing the link, and thus this is not a valid reason to send a DMCA notice to GitHub. To remove this content from the web, you should contact the web host that's actually hosting the content (not GitHub, nor the maintainers of this repository).
Shortly before takedown
In my experience, it always the 2nd one. There are law firms and agencies randomly taking down stuff on internet with their faulty scripts and crawlers.
What's worse is they also kill every single issue, PR and comment you've ever posted. It's quite cruel and unnecessary.
Are you saying, I could get both nuked if they find out it's the same person?
GitHub asking for one account? Crazy.
Biden's Administration just hired a ton of anti-trust lawyers.
Unfortunately its a sad fact that the people making these decisions are the people who don't have the natural sense to not do this in the first place for the simple reason that the behavior drives negative sentiment and outcomes in the long run for little if any net benefit.
They need to make Executives personally liable for stuff like this, otherwise they won't learn that they can't get away (it costs them something) as opposed to a business as usual slap on the wrist with the behavior baked into sales.
Not really, no.
No DMCA notice is posted, its simply a vague you broke our ToS but we're not going to tell you how or why so you can correct it according to the mods, and then the non-response for 9 days.
Github owns Microsoft, Microsoft has an interest in Content, IPTV like many other technologies can potentially be used by people and businesses for a wide variety of legal uses.
If a business closes an account for cause, you say why, you allow access to the maintainers to migrate (if its not a legal issue), and you keep the account closed.
If you don't say why, block access immediately, and don't provide a legitimate reason, you could be in violation of the Sherman act either directly, or more often via third-party liability when it comes to open source.
I'm not a lawyer, but I know that much, its far from clear that its not antitrust, and on a more personal note, you should be more careful with those snipes. Its against the HN ToS after all.
This repo was taken down last week:
https://torrentfreak.com/mpa-pluto-tv-m3u-playlists-facilita...
Which contained links to pluto tv's channels.
