Besides, how exactly would GitHub verify FACT (or someone they represent) doesn’t actually own the code used and/or copyright on some other portion of the project?

Even if there were some database GitHub could use, they might be able to check one or two requests, but what happens when they start getting thousands or even millions of requests a month? The law requires the site to be removed within a fairly quick time frame (48-72 hours or something like that). Are they going to have the man power to verify every single request in such a short time window?

If you read the article, it did mention they alerted the developers to the notice and allowed them some time to remove the issues from their project. During this time, they could have challenged the validity of the claim. The article, however, stated they took no action, so GitHub acted in the only way they legally could, they removed the project.

Now, am I saying I agree 100% with the law — NO, I am not. Personally I think it should be heavily amended, among other things, to provide some penalization measures to companies that abuse the system (more so than maybe forcing them to say “ooops, my bad”)… But that’s the way the law is presently written, and as such what we have to work with. GitHub shouldn’t be faulted for doing what they were legally required to do.

Even if it was valid they should have just blocked american users from the content.

As for the validity of the request. I don’t believe that is up to GitHub to decide. If they receive a proper take down notice (and to them, this was) they must act upon it in a specific limited time window. There is no requirement that GitHub verifies the sender actually does hold copyright authority on the work in question. Instead, they acted in accordance to the law. They passed word to the developers and provided them time to either correct any issues or challenge the take down notice itself. Failing action on the developer’s end, GitHub was forced, by law, to remove the project in question.

The developers could have taken steps to challenge the take down request. Like you said, FACT does not own the copyright to the particular project. However, it probably would have resulted in other legal issues for the developers. FACT could take the developers to court and argue that their software is intended to predominantly be used to aid pirates in finding pirated material faster and easier. And that there is not enough legitimate use possibilities for the software to counter the illegal uses. I could very well see a judge agreeing with them, and banning further development on the project.

Does it suck that this is the way the law works? That FACT and others can send potentially bogus take down requests for just about anything they want that the recipient has to honor? And even if it’s challenged in court the worst FACT will face is having to say “oops, our bad”? A big fat YES. However, unfortunately, that is the law, and until we can get it changed …

Though I doubt waving EUCJ rulings in the face of Congress is really going to help. The US is a type of country who believes her rules should apply everywhere on the planet. I highly doubt they would be willing to entertain laws from elsewhere being applied within it’s boarders, especially ones that counter parts of her own existing laws.

Well you need a web browser to view that website. So in-directly the makers who made the browser are commiting an offense.

Sounds stupid doesn’t it? But you cannot make a case and get someones software removed on the basis “it could be used for”
This then does actually apply to web browsers.

Federation Against Current Technology are completely destroying everything, and they themselves probably don’t even realise it too.

Everything would just come to a complete stand still if (F)ederation (A)gainst (C)urrent (T)echnology. had their way and was allowed to run the way they are currently.

Innovation has now stopped, when was the last time you actually seen something new p2p wise? Or file sharing wise? Or even Media Center wise.

Developers of software are too scared to produce anything in the fear it could somehow someday be used to infringe on copyrights.

This is why i am fighting and putting 110% of my time into everything i do. I’m a programmer i can no longer create programs of any sort, because no doubt it will infringe on someones patent, someones, copyright, someone’s idea.

you wonder how in the world there’s just not 1 car 1 tv 1 computer 1 motobike 1 radio 1 mobile phone.

If anyone tried to create something in this day and age from scratch right now, they simply couldn’t and it’s turning us back into 1984.

Do you honestly think today if Bittorrent was invented tomorrow and was released to the public it wouldn’t get shut down within the first 24hrs? On the basis it could be used for infringement.

Great thanks for the 7zip link lets see how long before that’s DMCA’d off that hosting provider too.

Hope that makes sense, and anyway (F)ederation (A)gainst (C)urrent (T)echnology. should never of been allowed to even touch this software, as they don’t own the copyright to the actual software.