GitHub Reverses Takedown of Code for Anime Torrent Site Despite Film Group's DMCA

Inside.com's developer newsletter spotted this code repository story: GitHub posted a DMCA notice it received from the Motion Picture Association (MPA) last week asking the platform to take down a repository associated with NYAA.si, a popular torrent site specializing in anime content. The DMCA captured attention as the code doesn't belong to the MPA. Rather, the MPA argues the code is used for the development of the site, which allows for copyright infringement, while the repo also makes it possible to create NYAA clones.

The news comes a few months after GitHub restored the youtube-dl repository and created a $1m legal defense fund to help open source developers fight unwarranted DMCA Section 1201 takedown claims. At the same time, the platform also announced it will be improving its Section 1201 claim review process to make it harder to take down repos.
But the next day, the newsletter reported GitHub had reversed the takedown: The company explains the notice didn't meet its DMCA Takedown Policy requirements as it failed to "establish that the code is preconfigured to infringe." GitHub adds that it also restored any content that was disabled because of the notice.
Some context from TorrentFreak: This isn't the first time the MPA has gone after the anime torrent site. Last November we reported that the anti-piracy group sent cease and desist letters to several people who are allegedly connected to the site, describing it as an "Anime Cartel".
TorrentFreak's latest update: A few weeks ago, the Motion Picture Association tried to shut the project down by going after several people who are allegedly linked to the site. Framing NYAA as an "Anime Cartel", the movie group demanded a total shutdown and tens of thousands of dollars in settlements...

This takedown request initially succeeded as GitHub disabled the repository earlier this week. Before doing so, the platform reached out to the developers and gave them the option to respond or make changes, but that request went unanswered. Without a response from the developers, this is usually where things end. In this case, however, GitHub decided to carry out another review after the project was taken down, perhaps in part motivated by the news coverage. "While we didn't hear back from the maintainers, we chose to do another review ourselves to proactively see how we could resolve the issue," a GitHub spokesperson informs TorrentFreak...

[A]t the time of writing the NYAA repository is up and running again. The MPA still has the option to provide additional information about the allegedly-infringing nature of the code, which would then trigger another review.

GitHub stresses that it's their purpose to make sure that developers can host code within the boundaries of the law. Unless the entire repository is infringing, it's standard policy to allow developers to respond to DMCA claims before any content is removed.

Re:

[Joviex]

Why have you all allowed this miserable situation to become reality through indifference?

You sound very angry over your personal, anecdotal experience.

Here is a quick test/analogy you can do: If every time you look around and people call you a troll, are they the troll, or are you?

Burying the lede there a bit

[SuperKendall]

It is in the summary at the end, but I think far more interesting than "GitHub reverses DMCA takedown" is them doing so without feedback from the developers! I think that is really great, that GitHub is willing to look more carefully into a DMCA takedown regardless of the maintainers fighting back.

Re:Burying the lede there a bit

[fred911]

''GitHub is willing to look more carefully into a DMCA takedown regardless''

And I agree, especially when you consider the current owners said ''clean room'' production and marketing of other's IP -MSDOS.

The elimination of any code that may be used to execute processes that may be used to infringe on other's IP, is censorship. A private platform has the right of censorship, but if they decide that elimination of other's words on their platform serves them better, or they attempt to be word police, at that point they are also taking responsibility as a publisher for all content on the platform. Can't have it both ways.

If I publish SC and a batch file that allows a dead end user to compile something that makes it easy for them to use content that they are not licensed to use, and I publish the same SC that has code commented out with an octothorpe and won't compile.. are they both infringing? What about users that are licensed to use the content, does that make them lawbreakers also.. or are my worlds and release of computational instruction protected equally...

just wondering

 

Re:

[Teresita]

You're just jealous because Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba the Movie: Mugen Train has yanked down $381 million worldwide in a year with a global contagion.

Re:

[Osgeld]

both

Though comics are more than flashing lights and screaming

Downside of de-platforming

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... MPA argues the code is used ...

While corporations shouldn't enable or ignore criminal behaviour, this is the down-side of de-platforming: Other corporations can claim "I'm a victim" and demand neutral comments (source code) be censored.

so will some ones office 365 or gsuit get shutdown

[Joe_Dragon]

so will some ones office 365 or gsuit get shutdown soon for some BS like this?

I wonder if the gun lobby would be interested.

[serutan]

If the MPA wins this, it seems like their argument to shut down a code repository because the code is used to commit crimes would also apply to gun and ammo factories.

Re:

[IdanceNmyCar]

Which is why there is no way they would win. I doubt they will even push the case because their lawyers know it's bull. It was more like throwing shit on the wall to see if any of it sticks and now GitHub called the bluff because they are tired of this these shit slinging apes.

Judges know the impact of such a ruling, as you clearly point out. There is likely a precedent case/ruling on this matter too.

GitHub may have a point here

[LostOne]

It sounds like GitHub's operating legal theory here is that the takedown notice is not proper because the MPA doesn't have standing to file the takedown. I can't think of any other way they could take unilateral action of this sort without opening themselves to major liability.

Re:

[IdanceNmyCar]

Which is the total bull of the situation. Of course they MPA doesn't have standing for this takedown but they also have no liability for improper takedowns. They need to get fined for this kind of bull and then they will stop filing so much shit that clearly is outside the scope of a valid takedown.

GitHub has gotten more aggressive at defending people but the fact is the MPA needs to get slapped fiscally for things to get better.

Re:

[Lehk228]

the way to fix improper DMCA filings is to add the same statutory damages as copyright infringement, up to $70,000 per instance and $130,000 if proved to be a willful, per listed work not per filing.

Re:

[UnderCoverPenguin]

legal theory here is that the takedown notice is not proper because the MPA doesn't have standing to file the takedown

That is a question for the courts to answer. The MPA is arguing that the code is for a tool primarily for infringing copyright. If the courts agree and also rule that the DMCA also grants standing for take-downs of tools that are, in themselves, not otherwise infringing on copyright, then the case could go forward.

according to the mpa

[renegade600]

nobody can buy paper since it could be used to violate copyright laws too. I wonder when they will file the takedown notice to Walmart and all the other stores that sells paper.

Re:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I was wondering when they might go after Microsoft Word, or Notepad, given people putting scanned (or now, cracked eReader) books online.

Was the microsoft acquisition even worth it?

[diffract]

Since the Microsoft acquisition, all news about github I see in the headlines are about take downs and copyright infringements. Why did MS acquire this in the first place and open up this nasty door for themselves?

Re:

[martynhare]

It's a strategic asset to maintain control over a developer ecosystem which has moved towards free software. It's also easy PR for attracting the kinds of people who value what they do over what they're paid to do it. Microsoft want to be able to perpetually pay their younger staff junior levels of pay and this is an easy ticket towards this goal.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Hence the dearth or weight loss and dating articles here.

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:

[Aighearach]

"All the criminals bathe, that's why I don't."

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Wait for it...

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

"I only download things I would never buy or watch on TV with ads, so they aren't losing money! I have over 4 terabytes of this stuff I barely care to watch!"

Good

[slazzy]

Charge the MPA with criminal offence for lying under penalty of perjury stating that they own the copyright in question when in fact they don't.

Re:

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Charge the MPA with criminal offence for lying under penalty of perjury stating that they own the copyright

The MPA wasn't asserting copyright ownership of the code:

Rather, the MPA argues the code is used for the development of the site, which allows for copyright infringement, while the repo also makes it possible to create NYAA clones.

In other words, the MPA was claiming the code is a piracy tool.

Of course, nearly all tools that have legitimate uses also have illegitimate uses.

Dear Anime producer in America

[DarkRookie2]

Make a better site, service, and overall translations than what fansubs can, than maybe people wouldn't torrent them.