3.8 KiB
Are you the owner of the content that has been disabled, or authorized to act on the owner’s behalf?
Yes, I am the content owner.
Please describe the nature of your content ownership or authorization to act on the owner's behalf.
I am the owner of the open source repository located on GitHub servers.
The copy is/was a personal copy of content publicly available on github before the counter notice. I wish it to be fully re-stored by GitHub, my previous requests to restore without counter notice have failed has been ignored.
What files were taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL.
https://github.com/spookyahell/youtube-dl
Do you want to make changes to your repository or do you want to dispute the notice?
Dispute the notice.
Is there anything else you think we should know about why you believe the material was removed as a result of a mistake?
The RIAA's DMCA notice was way to broad and also presumed by public to be wildly invalid. The notice didn't correctly interpret the law. The mentioned "anti-circumvention" methods do not apply. The application does not promote illegal downloads of videos. Period. The file for the unit tests is not prominent, as claimed by RIAA unlawfully. A german court case was quoted, this has no meaning in US law, so no place in DMCA takedown.
INSERT reference to EFF's response letter, where technical stuff is explained a bit better.
While it is my good-faith belief that individual serivce operators would be entitled to remove code downloading content from their site, or of course modify their service in a way that would disable or make it harder to use with youtube-dl, it is also my personal good-faith belief that this DCMA notice is/was wildly invalid.
I was appauled to hear GitHub actually went through with it at the time before consulting with the maintainers/owner first. Aparently, according to Github, a future case like this will be avoided. However it seems like GitHub is still kinda "the bitch of the RIAA" because they side with RIAA rather than developers who wish to reinstate the repos (unchanged) which according to the EFF would be perfectly legal.
The issues that arised from this takedown have lead to a major statement from github and change of already in-place policies and it seems they had to re-convince the developers that they actually support developers. The action they are taking with the actual forks however is unconvincing of their so-called principals.
If they actually supported developers they would have done the following:
- Reinstate the original project and it's forks and notify repository owners of what has happend.
- Notify RIAA about the invalidity of their claim. OR AT least
- Contact the maintainers/owner of such a huge OS project ASAP to discuss and arrange a solution. AND
- When/if RIAA tries again... read the notice and check if it's more valid than the last one.
I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.
I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which my address is located (if in the United States, otherwise the Northern District of California where GitHub is located), and I will accept service of process from the person who provided the DMCA notification or an agent of such person.
Please confirm that you have you have read our Guide to Submitting a DMCA Counter Notice.
So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.
[private]
Please type your full legal name below to sign this request.
[private]