> GitHub apparently follows this process exactly--without any deviation. GitHub does zero investigation to determine who is in the right--even in a case as obvious as this. Mr-Steal-Your-Script's user name alone should be enough to let GitHub know who owns the code. During this entire process, GitHub communicated with me entirely by computer-generated responses. I never had an opportunity to explain the situation to an actual human being. So, if I wish to pursue this matter further, it seems that I have no choice but to hire a lawyer.<p>So GitHub follows the legal process set out for hosting services? Umm, yeah. No shit. They're doing exactly what they're supposed to.<p>> I do not even have the option of suing Mr-Steal-Your-Script to pay my lawyer's fees, because he is anonymous. As blatant as his theft was, I have to assume that he has covered his tracks well enough to remain anonymous.<p>GitHub should have provided you with his counter-notice including contact information. If they've accepted a clearly invalid counter-notice then you can sue them.<p>Otherwise, yeah, this guy has posted a copy of your code, and the only way to take it down is to sue him. That's how copyright infringement usually works - it'd be the same if he were hosting it in ISP-provided webspace, or his own personal site, or printed it out on a physical billboard he owns. I don't know why you see this as being about "the Corporate Internet" at all.
I'm not precisely sure why original author blames "corporate internet" here. Mr-Steal-Your-Script likely shared it to GitHub because that's convenient, but in the absence of a GitHub, they would post it to their own server, ignore his requests to take it down, and he'd be in the same boat he's in now: hire a lawyer to attempt to assert his rights.<p>The underlying principle---legal representation costs money even if you're in the right---would still hold.
The title is quite misleading, make one think that GitHub actively stole someone's code, which is not true.<p>I understand the pain of the developer and the fact that GitHub is not doing anything. But, imagine if GitHub had to act on each of these disputes? Besides probably the sheer amount of requests, I can bet that at some point they would give side to the copier and then it would end-up on the news as well.
This kinda misrepresents the DMCA process.<p>You do not have to hire a lawyer, you only have to start a lawsuit over the case.<p>a default in your favor because he failed to respond is likely how that process would go, otherwise he has to identify himself and you suddenly regain the option of suing for fees<p>side-edit: Ironically enough, if he <i>had</i> gone open source, he could get free legal help dmca'ing the repo in court for the removal of the copyright messages from the Software Freedom Law Center.
Repo seems to be: <a href="https://github.com/Mr-Steal-Your-Script/bwfForum" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Mr-Steal-Your-Script/bwfForum</a><p>Edit: yep, that's it. Here's the commit that removes the "Sh*t Message": <a href="https://github.com/Mr-Steal-Your-Script/bwfForum/commit/184ad409dc07b98615b938ca62b811fb1e456924" rel="nofollow">https://github.com/Mr-Steal-Your-Script/bwfForum/commit/184a...</a>
While I sympathize with the author's frustration (especially towards the one who intentionally republished their code without permission), it seems the author either does not fully understand the DMCA process or that it is not unique to GitHub.<p>I am not a lawyer, but it is my understanding that a DMCA counter notice asserts that - under penalty of purjury - there is a good faith belief that the DMCA takedown request is invalid. Once a host receives this, they wait 10-14 days and then must restore the hosted content. The only available next step in the process for the copyright holder is to use the court system.<p>"In order to protect against the possibility of erroneous or fraudulent notifications, certain safeguards are built into section 512. Subsection (g)(1) gives the subscriber the opportunity to respond to the notice and takedown by filing a counternotification. In order to qualify for the protection against liability for taking down material, the service provider must promptly notify the subscriber that it has removed or disabled access to the material. If the subscriber serves a counter notification complying with statutory requirements, including a statement under penalty of perjury that the material was removed or disabled through mistake or misidentification, then unless the copyright owner files an action seeking a court order against the subscriber, the service provider must put the material back up within 10-14 business days after receiving the counter notification.<p>Penalties are provided for knowing material misrepresentations in either a notice or a counter notice. Any person who knowingly materially misrepresents that material is infringing, or that it was removed or blocked through mistake or misidentification, is liable for any resulting damages (including costs and attorneys’ fees) incurred by the alleged infringer, the copyright owner or its licensee, or the service provider.(Section 512(f))." [1, Page 12]<p>[1]: <a href="https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://www.copyright.gov/legislation/dmca.pdf</a>
Title is some click-bait, github didn’t stole your code, somebody else did and posted it at github.<p>You will have to fill DMCA and if they don’t take it down then claim github stole it.
Flagged for misleading title.<p>Accurate title: "Someone shared my copyrighted code, and GitHub used software instead of a human to arbitrate".<p>Not as interesting or unexpected. None of the major platforms for user-generated content could possibly review every claim with human time.
I’ve had code stolen by an employee who used it to start a competing service. I sued him in Federal court and won.<p>You didn’t have your code stolen.<p>Your code was free and open, and the header he removed stated that fact.<p>What you had was a violation of your terms of use, and I while I agree the guy’s probably a scumbag, the only issue here is that he was seen doing it.<p>Rest assured, others have done it without being seen, it’s a fact of life for a public code repo.<p>I suggest you:<p>(a) change “copywrite” to “copyright” in your code, since a copywrite is someone who writes stories, and a copyright is a legal term claiming ownership;<p>(b) file a dmca takedown notice with github; I run a hosting service and when we receive those, we take action;<p>(c) move on. Life’s too short, and all he has to do is republish it to another repo and keep you angry and not working on your code.<p>(d) actually file a copyright with your code so that he doesn’t do it then sue you for using his code;<p>I feel for you, but scumbags are what they are and there’s not much you can do about it unless you spend a ton of money to find and file a suit against him that you will probably not win.<p>My condolences.
It's not GitHub who stole the code, it's a GitHub user who published it there against the licensing terms.<p>While I do share the author's frustration with the fact that GitHub does zero fact checking, my concerns go entirely in the other direction: much of the internet now works in such a way that a DMCA takedown notice will effectively remove <i>any</i> content <i>someone</i> doesn't want out there.<p>I do understand why platforms do it like this, being in the business of arbitrating who is right and who is not is not feasible (and it's probably also not legal).<p>Criticisms of this process should be levied against lawmakers and the law itself.<p>However, to be perfectly frank, it's a good thing that hiring a lawyer to send this letter on your behalf is the minimum effort required to do this. Of course that doesn't solve malicious takedown notices sent by big law firms and corporations, but I do believe it limits the overall amount of letters that get sent.
> My copyright notice says that no one may modify or re-distribute it. I wanted to make my code free for anyone to use, but I did not want to be forced into some kind of competition with others for control of it.<p>Did the author actually believe that his amateur licence terms allow practical reuse? This is effectively an "All rights reserved" notice.
Github didn’t steal anything. Some random person downloaded the code and posted it on github without its copyright notice. And Github’s DMCA takedown process is pretty much the same as everybody else’s.<p>This is an unhappy story, but really, how would you like things to work? Github isn’t in the business of adjudicating copyright ownership, nor should it be.
Sadly, this is corporate America these days. We are living in the Cyberpunk future where corporations have the upper hand and are not required to provide an actual reasonable human to investigate or pass judgement on your issue. You see it with the algos that run user interfacing parts of Youtube, Facebook regularly.<p>It's messed up. I'm sorry your code got stolen.
I've never done it, but I don't think you need a lawyer to file a DMCA takedown request. It's not that hard to do.<p>Is there any reason for him not just do it, or that you'd need legal counsel? Thinking it through, I suppose theoretically you might worry that if you did it wrong you could get in legal trouble, but a) this guy is positive he owns the copyright to this thing it's not any kind of grey area, b) even those who totally file DMCA takedowns under bad faith never ever ever get penalized for it, like nobody ever has been penalized for filing a DMCA in bad faith I don't think? (This is not a good thing, but is in this guy's favor here). And again, this one would <i>definitely</i> not be in bad faith.<p>Just fill out a DMCA takedown request and send it to github? It's not that hard, you can definitely find a template and fill it out within a very unhurried couple hours max with a couple coffee breaks in there. You don't need a lawyer.<p>I know HN loves to hate Github, but you can't get mad at them both for taking things down when those claiming copyright ask them to, and also for <i>not</i> doing so unless someone actually follows the proper (pretty simple and not very burdensome) procedure.<p>The OP sounds like he's mad that the world is not entirely arranged in his favor to cater to his personal needs, and this is somehow a new realization for him.