Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Qualcomm Takes Down 100+ GitHub Repositories With DMCA Notice

Soulskill posted about three weeks ago | from the we-invented-the-for-loop dept.

Software 349

An anonymous reader writes Qualcomm has forced GitHub to remove over 100 repositories due to "unauthorized publication, disclosure, and copying of highly sensitive, confidential, trade secret, and copyright-protected documents." Among the repositories taken down were for CyanogenMod and Sony Xperia. The issue though is that these "highly sensitive" and "confidential" files are Linux kernel code and reference/sample code files that can be easily found elsewhere, including the Android kernel, but GitHub has complied with Qualcomm's DMCA request.

cancel ×

349 comments

Frissst psssot (-1, Offtopic)

Noogie Brown (889153) | about three weeks ago | (#47384235)

OH yeah first charlie brown

What else is safe ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384307)

Any vendor can issue DCMA on any file online as "violating" whatever IP / Copyright / Patent that it holds, and normally the ISP (or gate keeper) complies and remove those files

In light of this, anything can be accused of "violating" something - and that makes everything online liable to be taken down, if DCMA is not reigned in

Re:What else is safe ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384359)

At least spell it right. It's DMCA not DCMA. Jesus Christ.

Re:What else is safe ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384559)

The "Dumbest Crapfest of the Millenium Act".

Re:What else is safe ? (3, Interesting)

knightghost (861069) | about three weeks ago | (#47384639)

The dumbest thing about this is that we're talking about it instead of doing something effective about it.

Re:What else is safe ? (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about three weeks ago | (#47384767)

Proposals, then? I have two:

- Lobby for copyright reform that actually makes it harder to bring false accusations or imposes a penalty for notices sent in error. Problem there is going up against some of the best lobbyists in the world: By the time they are done rewriting any such proposal, it'd make things worse.

- Turn to crypto-anarchism and set up communications systems that are resistant to takedown, like freenet. Problem here is that such systems come with nasty overheads and would be just as popular with the more criminal element.

On this 4th of July... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384249)

Freedom, in the land of the just.

Land of the Eunuch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384325)

Freedom, in the land of the just

It looks more and more like the land of the retard, home of the eunuch

Re:Land of the Eunuch (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384529)

Freedom, in the land of the just

It looks more and more like the land of the retard, home of the eunuch

But we can own GUNS!!!

Re:Land of the Eunuch (2, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about three weeks ago | (#47384625)

Sure, you got to compensate with something! :)

Re:On this 4th of July... (5, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | about three weeks ago | (#47384581)

Freedom, in the land of the just.

And you can blame every bit of it on the DMCA.

This is a great example of how the takedown process established by DMCA is inherently abusive. Lots of perfectly legitimate information is taken down with no proof of anything, just because some copyright troll wants to say so.

That ain't America.

Re:On this 4th of July... (5, Insightful)

jbolden (176878) | about three weeks ago | (#47384613)

This is America. This is how the legal system has always worked.

A does action X.
B objects and threatens to sue A if the doesn't stop X.
A agrees.

GitHub is a distributor. To distribute they need to be properly licensed. They are now asking for assurance of licensing given that Qualcomm is contending they are the copyright holder. That's all that is happening. Qualcomm is factually wrong and under the law they can be sued for being wrong by the licensees (the people about whom they made false complaints).

That is in no way different than what would have happened 100 years ago if someone was distributing a book and someone else complained that the distributor didn't have license to the material.

Re:On this 4th of July... (4, Insightful)

EasyTarget (43516) | about three weeks ago | (#47384701)

Qualcomm is factually wrong and under the law they can be sued for being wrong by the licensees

Yeah good luck with that.

Re:On this 4th of July... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about three weeks ago | (#47384775)

I understand. But the inequality between rich and poor in court ain't something new which is what GP was claiming. :)
  There are other justice systems where wealth is less of a factor which have other different minus.

Re:On this 4th of July... (4, Insightful)

profplump (309017) | about three weeks ago | (#47384797)

No. It's not sufficient to be "factually wrong" -- the claims must be "knowingly false". You can issue all the "accidental" takedown notices you want without any fear of being sued over it. Which is nothing like 100 year ago.

one of the repos was their own (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384255)

that's what i heard on hacker news where you steal half your stories a day late.

slashdot = stagnated

Re:one of the repos was their own (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384371)

God I hope this is true. File DMCA takedown against your own repo. BRILLIANT.

Counter-notice! (1)

dwheeler (321049) | about three weeks ago | (#47384259)

Hopefully they will quickly submit a counter-notice.

Re:Counter-notice! (3, Interesting)

adri (173121) | about three weeks ago | (#47384679)

I am. I'm just fine-tuning it at the moment.

(github.com/qca/qca_open_hal_public)

*sigh* and I wanted to enjoy my weekend..

-a

"Good faith" (4, Insightful)

jargonburn (1950578) | about three weeks ago | (#47384305)

It's too bad that there's not a higher bar for "good faith." It'd be nice if it could be more readily disproven, in some cases.

"I did a Google search for [term] and have a good faith belief that there's no possible way any of the results could be non-infringing. Because I can't believe that any of the results could possibly be non-infringing, I'm not going to examine any of the results more closely. I require you to remove all these results I came up with or be subject to liability under ridiculous laws if it turns out my head isn't *completely* up my ass. In addition, unless you can *prove* that I'm not acting in good faith, through a time-consuming and expensive process, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it! Have a nice day! ---Jackass-in-a-suit"

Re:"Good faith" (5, Insightful)

Nyder (754090) | about three weeks ago | (#47384339)

It's too bad that there's not a higher bar for "good faith." It'd be nice if it could be more readily disproven, in some cases.

"I did a Google search for [term] and have a good faith belief that there's no possible way any of the results could be non-infringing. Because I can't believe that any of the results could possibly be non-infringing, I'm not going to examine any of the results more closely. I require you to remove all these results I came up with or be subject to liability under ridiculous laws if it turns out my head isn't *completely* up my ass. In addition, unless you can *prove* that I'm not acting in good faith, through a time-consuming and expensive process, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it! Have a nice day! ---Jackass-in-a-suit"

Screw good faith. Places need to start charging to process DMCA notices, and then when they get fake or bad, or just plain wrong notices like this, you then charge them 1000x the price. They don't pay? Then you don't process any more DMCA notices from them.

I thought we were about capitalism, this is capitalism at it's finest. Money is the only thing these people/corporations understand, so speak their language. They want to not be responsible about DMCA notices, then make it cost them.

Re:"Good faith" (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384423)

The DMCA does not allow you to refuse to process notices due to unpaid processing fees. Therefore, if they refuse to pay the fee, you are still required to process all their notices anyway, or you lose safe harbor.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384449)

It's too bad that there's not a higher bar for "good faith." It'd be nice if it could be more readily disproven, in some cases.

"I did a Google search for [term] and have a good faith belief that there's no possible way any of the results could be non-infringing. Because I can't believe that any of the results could possibly be non-infringing, I'm not going to examine any of the results more closely. I require you to remove all these results I came up with or be subject to liability under ridiculous laws if it turns out my head isn't *completely* up my ass. In addition, unless you can *prove* that I'm not acting in good faith, through a time-consuming and expensive process, there's absolutely nothing you can do about it! Have a nice day! ---Jackass-in-a-suit"

Screw good faith. Places need to start charging to process DMCA notices, and then when they get fake or bad, or just plain wrong notices like this, you then charge them 1000x the price. They don't pay? Then you don't process any more DMCA notices from them.

I thought we were about capitalism, this is capitalism at it's finest. Money is the only thing these people/corporations understand, so speak their language. They want to not be responsible about DMCA notices, then make it cost them.

Fine with me, I'll start a site that is full of data that needs to be removed due to DMCA. Automate the processing of the notices and collect payment. Wash, rinse, repeat.

Re: "Good faith" (4, Interesting)

jxander (2605655) | about three weeks ago | (#47384457)

There also need to be rules for overturned requests.

If Company A issues a takedown request against something on my website, and I successfully appeal the claim, that needs to be a strike against Company A.

Three strikes and Company A is barred from making DMCA requests (either permanently or for some set timeframe). This would instantly stop these companies from issuing mass auto-generated takedown requests.

Re:"Good faith" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384555)

YOU don't understand: It's capitalism for us, and socialism for THEM.

Re:"Good faith" (2)

jbolden (176878) | about three weeks ago | (#47384629)

Screw good faith. Places need to start charging to process DMCA notices, and then when they get fake or bad, or just plain wrong notices like this, you then charge them 1000x the price. They don't pay? Then you don't process any more DMCA notices from them.

The DMCA process is the law. ISPs don't get to charge. They have two choices

a) Accept liability
b) Get a statement of license from the person distributing the content

If DMCA continues to grow what is going to happen is ISPs will just need license assurance first before publishing like music distributors or book distributors do now.

Re:"Good faith" (1)

FuzzNugget (2840687) | about three weeks ago | (#47384451)

Good faith, my ass. You do know that takedown notices are supposed to be filed truthfully under penalty of perjury, yes? Has anyone who's filed obviously false claims ever been charged accordingly?

Re:"Good faith" (4, Insightful)

whoever57 (658626) | about three weeks ago | (#47384551)

You do know that takedown notices are supposed to be filed truthfully under penalty of perjury, yes?

No. They don't.

The penalty of perjury only applies to a very small part of the takedown notice -- that the person making the request is authorized to act on behalf of the copyright holder. The rest of the takedown notice is not under penalty of perjury.

Re:"Good faith" (1)

jbolden (176878) | about three weeks ago | (#47384669)

Yes. The RIAA got their head handed to them for these sorts of claims. In a sort of related ways banks have paid 10 digit fines collectively for false foreclosure notices.

Re:"Good faith" (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about three weeks ago | (#47384791)

Incorrect. The only part under penalty is that the notice is filed with authorisation of the copyright holder. There's no requirement the rest of the information be accurate. This is what makes it possible to, say, google every site hosting a file with the words 'justin bieber' in the filename and extension '.mp3' and send automatic takedowns. Sure, there will be a few errors - but it's prohibatively expensive to actually manually download and listen to every one of those files.

Re:"Good faith" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384461)

There's a perjury clause there too. I wish judges would take some notice and prosecute. First one behind bars will serve as a deterrent to the rest.

Re:"Good faith" (1)

jbolden (176878) | about three weeks ago | (#47384637)

To win any lawsuit (including copyright) the burden of proof is on the person suing. The last thing America needs is easier ways to make money suing people.

Trolling (5, Interesting)

Kuberz (3568651) | about three weeks ago | (#47384313)

Kind of ironic one of those repositories is owned by Qualcomm Atheros. Guess they are copyright infringing themselves?

Oh the world we live in.

Re:Trolling (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384497)

Especially since the atheros division actually does a decent amount of open source driver work. I have used a number of atheros wireless devices in linux these past few years and they have all worked quite well.

Re:Trolling (5, Interesting)

adri (173121) | about three weeks ago | (#47384687)

It's pretty funny indeed. Except when it's not.

I'm the guy that got that through the internal Qualcomm open source review process .. and now they've done this. Grr.

Go to hell Qualcomm (1)

fnj (64210) | about three weeks ago | (#47384317)

And stay there.

Patent Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384321)

Adding Quackcomm to the "Patent Troll" list of products I will never purchase.

Re: Patent Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384377)

Good luck with that, at least if you want a device that connects to cellular networks.

Re: Patent Trolls (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384661)

I'll use 2 soup cans and some string before I give money to a company that issues massive DMCA takedowns.

Re: Patent Trolls (1)

Cley Faye (1123605) | about three weeks ago | (#47384789)

You know, seeing how things are going lately, not being able to connect to current cellular networks looks more and more appealing.

Luuuuuucy! (1)

hduff (570443) | about three weeks ago | (#47384323)

You got some 'splainin' to do. rickyricardo.jpg

There need to be costs (5, Interesting)

ggraham412 (1492023) | about three weeks ago | (#47384335)

There needs to be a cost for issuing overbroad DMCA takedown notices.

If a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.

Re:There need to be costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384389)

lets just slap them with a mandatory finding of infringement and hit them with the maximum penalties. hey it's fair since using a dcma is claiming ownership of the product to get it taken down.

Re:There need to be costs (0)

kimvette (919543) | about three weeks ago | (#47384395)

> Let's start at $10000 per infraction.

That is just the cost of doing business to someone like Qualcomm. Let's start at 10% of the annual gross revenue, based on the average gross revenue of the previous three years, PLUS 10% of the revenue of the current year to date. Keep in mind we are talking per infraction, so in this case (>100 githubs) this fraud would cost Qualcomm over ten years' worth of gross revenue.

Re:There need to be costs (2)

just_a_monkey (1004343) | about three weeks ago | (#47384709)

Now we just have to beat Qualcomm's campaign contributions so that this will be made into law.

Re:There need to be costs (1)

penguinoid (724646) | about three weeks ago | (#47384799)

Now don't be crazy... if a company can get $10,000 by successfully fighting a DMCA request, frivolous requests will vanish overnight. Instead of the one-sided way it is now (comply, or get nothing but liability). Also, if you did it based on % of revenue, you'd end up with penniless companies issuing takedown requests.

Re:There need to be costs (1)

ATMAvatar (648864) | about three weeks ago | (#47384413)

That will only work if each repository shut down counts as a separate infraction. $10k overall is a pittance. Even if they all counted as separate infractions at $10k apiece, it may still be seen as a valid business expense to shut down certain projects temporarily with bad faith takedown notices. After all, a project owner would have to bring this to court and prove that the notice was issued in bad faith before the fine would be issued, and the legal expenses to do so would probably cost more than the fine.

Re:There need to be costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384607)

Or, we could make the entity filing the notice responsible for 10x damages, including legal fees and court costs, if their claim is judged to be invalid -- even if it was filed in "good faith". Then, lawyers would take the cases to defend against a notice on a contingency basis. Also, allow individuals who were harmed by the invalid takedown notice because information was unavailable to them to sue the entity filing it to recover their costs (those would, presumably, become class action suits in most cases).

Re:There need to be costs (1)

mysidia (191772) | about three weeks ago | (#47384415)

There needs to be a cost for issuing overbroad DMCA takedown notices.

I have a proposal: civil forfeiture of copyright assets spuriously alleged to be infringed, if the number of legitimate uses affected by wrongful DMCA letter exceeds 10 per work per calendar year.

Re:There need to be costs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384427)

With the US dollar rapidly losing value, $10,000 is chump change. I'd recommend putting it at $1 million per infraction.

Re:There need to be costs (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47384439)

There is no possible fix for the DMCA. It is working exactly as designed. The better solution is to elect people who will repeal the law. Aside from that, the fine should be a million per infraction. $10000 won't stop the big offenders. And aside from that, we need an internet that can better resist censorship and tracking. As long as it is possible to vote away our rights, we need technical solutions to make it impossible.

Re:There need to be costs (1)

znrt (2424692) | about three weeks ago | (#47384689)

if a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.

won't work. many of dmca trolls have no problem in shelling out 10k, even several times a day. this would just alienate the guy or small company that may have a legitimate claim but can't afford it and also has reasonable fear that he will get trampled over in court. it's the same problem with patents: the rich will almost always win. patent fights nowadays only make sense between megacorps.

the only real solution is going full underground. free source simply cannot depend on private companies' goodwill, with or without dmca or you name it. it has to escape the system to be really free. that's the problem i always saw with github and similar sites: a cool idea, cool implementation, but moot in this society full off greedy incorporated assholes. we need to implement the idea differently, with a resilient anonymous network (that's right, it *has* to be anonymous, too bad for some crippled egos). if we manage to get to that no ignominy disguised in lame copyright will do shit.

Re:There need to be costs (1)

mpe (36238) | about three weeks ago | (#47384737)

There needs to be a cost for issuing overbroad DMCA takedown notices.

If a court finds out later that a company had no standing or no good reason to make a DMCA claim that resulted in a takedown, there should be statutory damages. Let's start at $10000 per infraction.


Alternativly if the claimant does not represent the copyright holder treat their actions as copyright infringement with statutory damages according to how many times the file could have expected to be accessed whilst it was unavailable. Based on pre "take down" logs.
If they did represent the copyright holder then copyright is transfered to the person or company which was the target of the bogus takedown notice.

No validation (1)

Chris Parsons (3398385) | about three weeks ago | (#47384337)

There is little in the way of validation for these requests. Anyone can simply announce ownership of a part of the code and claim it is stolen property. "Hey, I used a for loop once and that looks a lot like mine."

Re:No validation (4, Interesting)

phoebe (196531) | about three weeks ago | (#47384381)

A lot of the reference repositories include a Qualcomm proprietary license header. Many are from the Vuforia SDK [vuforia.com] which has a clear license agreement [vuforia.com] that prevents such redistribution.

Re:No validation (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about three weeks ago | (#47384565)

Anyone can simply announce ownership of a part of the code and claim it is stolen property. "Hey, I used a for loop once and that looks a lot like mine."

No, this is not possible.

Github overtaken by thuggish government (5, Insightful)

fnj (64210) | about three weeks ago | (#47384343)

Github FAILS the requirement for reliability due to being subject to DMCA horseshit. Will somebody please start the next github in a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384393)

Bitbucket.org is a good replacement for now, although eventually they will probably end up complying with DMCA takedowns.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (2)

phantomfive (622387) | about three weeks ago | (#47384441)

Bitbucket is developed by Atlassian in San Francisco. They will comply with DMCA takedowns because the cost for not doing so is too great.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384499)

You don't get out much, do you?

bitbucket has the "advantage" of allowing privatized repositories, for free. That reduces the exposure to unauthorized download.

Of course, the script kiddies exchange credentials for "hidden" repos. I've caught them at it.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about three weeks ago | (#47384635)

That would help projects like CyanogenMod how exactly?

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (3, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about three weeks ago | (#47384471)

...a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations...

does not exist, not on this planet. You can bet that, if it came down to brass tacks, nuclear weapons would be used to enforce copyright when more conventional methods fail.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384647)

So, hosting GitHub in Russia should be pretty safe...

Stone Age (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384493)

The current state of law in the USA is putting them back in the stone age. DMCA takedowns, almost no rights for citizens, even less when they are living within quite a long distance from a border of the country and non citizens visiting or working in the country even less. Half of Africa has a lower debt per capita than the USA has and the USA is making owning and running a manufacturing or inventing company in the country extremely hard. It's not just GitHub, it's almost everything these days....

Who do you trust? (1)

westlake (615356) | about three weeks ago | (#47384509)

Will somebody please start the next github in a jurisdiction untouchable by DMCA and other thuggish regulations.

The geek is forever looking for some safe haven.

I don't know where you will find one when the stakes are high enough.

I do know I'm not going to be looking eight to twelve thousand miles from home for a KIm Dotcom to protect my interests.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (1)

MikeBabcock (65886) | about three weeks ago | (#47384535)

Basically you want Github hosted in Canada.

Re:Github overtaken by thuggish government (1)

cheesybagel (670288) | about three weeks ago | (#47384631)

Get a repository some place outside the US. Where there is less of this nonsense.

User Beware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384357)

It doesn't look like GitHub is the best place to park a project.

Re:User Beware (3, Insightful)

jones_supa (887896) | about three weeks ago | (#47384577)

Sadly, I expect this incident to be forgotten over the weekend and cause no harm to GitHub's reputation.

World of Mirrors (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about three weeks ago | (#47384373)

The important part, if one receives such a notice is to make certain that everything appears on other sites such that take down notices have no power at all. Matter of fact we could teach people that the fastest way to expose information is an order to take down the information.

Comply first. Litigate later. (3, Informative)

luis_a_espinal (1810296) | about three weeks ago | (#47384383)

but GitHub has complied with Qualcomm's DMCA request.

Comply first. Litigate later. This is the smart thing to do most of the time. For GitHub, it is not like they are being forced to give the keys to the kingdom or to hand over sensitive data customers entrusted to it. No no data is lost or compromised. It is simply inaccessible while GitHub tries to litigate hopefully with sponsorship by those GitHub users that are being affected.

FUCK YOU Qualcomm's piece of shit lawyers. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384387)

FUCK YOU Qualcomm's piece of shit lawyers.

Not githubs fault (5, Insightful)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about three weeks ago | (#47384409)

I used to handle DMCA requests. We got thousands per day. You get them via email and there's no way to verify that the sender is who they say they are, the sender is actually the owner of the content, that the content can even BE owned, or that the contents of what's being complained about has anything to do with the complaint. DMCA requests are a logistical nightmare. You have a user thats hosting a file... Music.mp3 and you get an email from joesmith@lawfirm.com or whatever... How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question? How do you know it's not just a recording of the guys kid singing the song in the bath? Maybe the person sending the complaint is just his ex-wife. There's very little you can do about any of it, so you have to make a wild ass guess. You're almost always wrong, but the one thing you can be sure of is that if someone like Qualcomm sends you a complaint, they can certainly follow through with a lawsuit, where-as the an open source project likely cannot. So which side would you err on?

This is a problem with the law, not with Github or even Qualcomm. Fix the damned law.

Re:Not githubs fault (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about three weeks ago | (#47384447)

How do you know they represent the content owner? Or are even really lawyers? Or that the claimed content owner owns the song in question?

They have to state under penalty of perjury that they are or represent the content owner. And they have to give you a contact address. As they make a statement under penalty of perjury, they are either right or criminals. If they are criminals, that will get sorted out.

Re:Not github's fault (3, Interesting)

Gramie2 (411713) | about three weeks ago | (#47384549)

So you make up a completely fictitious name and address. Perjury problem solved! As long as the content gets pulled down, who cares?

Re:Not githubs fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384667)

Can you even give me a single example of this 'sorted out' business where it relates to DMCA take down requests?

Didn't think so.

Re:Not githubs fault (1)

Tablizer (95088) | about three weeks ago | (#47384503)

There is a reason USA laws usually favor bigger companies: they wrote them.

Re:Not githubs fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384591)

No the problem is that corporations were able to buy this law. The real problem is corruption.

Re:Not githubs fault (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384699)

Seems to be a simple solution to that. Don't have an email address.
Seriously though, these are so easily abused now, that a court order really should be necessary. Or at the very list require some 3rd party to authenticate such claims (with a cost to cover the labor). Or make an appeal process that doesn't require the immediate takedown of said infringing content.

Re:Not githubs fault (1)

drainbramage (588291) | about three weeks ago | (#47384753)

The president has a pen.
I'm sure he'll be right on this.
Perhaps before tee time.

Qualcomm, but not really Qualcomm. (5, Interesting)

tsnow (3732101) | about three weeks ago | (#47384421)

It isn't Qualcomm directly that issued the DMCA notices, but rather, an IP protection agency that operates on behalf of Qualcomm. In my work, I've often had to respond to these DMCA notifications, and these IP protection agencies are often pretty bush league. They'll see something that possibly infringes on an IP, and then they'll jump on it, thinking it'll make them look good to their client, who hired them. Honestly, I doubt this company will be doing much more work for Qualcomm once they discover what has happened.

From the Phoronix site: (5, Interesting)

gnasher719 (869701) | about three weeks ago | (#47384425)

That C file is part of the Android MSM kernel source tree and does contain a "Qualcomm Confidential and Proprietary" line while noting it's now under a Linux Foundation copyright.

Well, that could be just a tiny little problem for Qualcomm then. In a DMCA takedown notice, there are mistakes that you are allowed to make and mistakes that are criminal. A DMCA takedown notice against material that is not the one you own, or that has a license which you didn't notice, that's harmless. But you state under penalty of perjury that you are the copyright holder or represent the copyright holder of the item that you believe to be infringed. So if the Linux Foundation is indeed the copyright holder, that should be fatal.

Re:From the Phoronix site: (4, Interesting)

Greyfox (87712) | about three weeks ago | (#47384481)

It seems to me that it's awfully close to breaking the terms of the license under which Linux is published. Perhaps the copyright holder should demand that Qualcomm cease and desist using Linux.

Cyveillance (5, Interesting)

janoc (699997) | about three weeks ago | (#47384477)

Oh that DMCA was issued by Cyveillance - the incompetent company Hollywood and music labels hired for policing P&P by string matching filenames and then carpet bombing service providers with DMCA requests, even though the content was not infringing at all. I bet they simply crawled Github for Qualcomm copyright notices, something that is often left in source code, even though it was relicensed long time ago already. Unfortunately, their bot is not that smart.

Some references:
https://www.techdirt.com/artic... [techdirt.com]
http://arstechnica.com/tech-po... [arstechnica.com]

etc.

These bozos are known and someone at Qualcomm should get fired for hiring them. This is going to backfire at Qualcomm in a spectacular way, IMO.

Appears elsewhere? (1)

Chuckstar (799005) | about three weeks ago | (#47384501)

I don't know enough to comment on the validity of the claimed copyrights in general. But I do know one thing: The fact that material appears elsewhere online is not evidence that it is not copyrighted.

The important question is not whether the stuff appears elsewhere. The important question is only whether Oracle's claimed copyright is real/valid.

Re:Appears elsewhere? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384655)

Posting Anon due to spending mod points earlier. I believe the "appears elsewhere" defense is aimed at the trade secrets part of the DMCA contention. It would be a tough row to hoe, claiming something is a proprietary, confidential, trade secret when it's (e.g.) on dozens of sites and millions of computers as part of the Linux kernel (or otherwise exists all over the open source world).

Re:Appears elsewhere? (1)

msauve (701917) | about three weeks ago | (#47384693)

" The important question is only whether Oracle's claimed copyright is real/valid."

Getting your villains confused?

And nothing of value was lost.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384507)

Fuckin android shit..

Linux licensing canary? (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | about three weeks ago | (#47384523)

Is github just the canary for another SCO repeat? Will Qualcomm be demanding protection money from everyone who uses Linux?

Re:Linux licensing canary? (-1, Troll)

Opportunist (166417) | about three weeks ago | (#47384649)

Here's my dick. If they want to, they can suck it.

And whatever they get out of it, they may keep.

Re:Linux licensing canary? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384705)

Trying to give aids back to the monkeys, are we?

IP (1)

Joe Johnson (3720117) | about three weeks ago | (#47384531)

People should be more patient before blasting a company that has made many technological advances for our betterment. Qualcomm may (or may not) have very good reason to make this initial request, but I think they need to narrow their request to specific code that infringes on their IP... Not entire code bases. Let's see how this pans out... Before rushing to judgment.

Re:IP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384585)

They make technological advances for profit. The open source community is a benefit TO them. Not the other way around.
They'd better get on their knees and grovel because they just fucked up big time.

Location? (2)

forrie (695122) | about three weeks ago | (#47384533)

I wonder if the DMCA sharks would have a more difficult time issuing this if github were not hosted within the United States. Anyone know more about this?

I can understand why github would comply first, debate later -- they have many employees who could be at risk. I agree with a previous poster, in that there should be a "cost" for filing DMCA complaints, especially if they prove to be baseless. This process seems to be always associated with bullying or some form of abuse, rather than genuinely protecting copyrighted content -- doing more harm than good.

Blacklist the bastards. (1)

aeschinesthesocratic (1359449) | about three weeks ago | (#47384569)

Someone needs to get together a wall of shame website for companies like Qualcomm. Call out and shame these bastards constantly. Boycott whoever you can on that list. Never forgive; never forget.

Re:Blacklist the bastards. (1)

hjf (703092) | about three weeks ago | (#47384717)

They are in everything that has to do with mobile technology. Want to boycott them? You have to go completely offline.

I gotta ask (3, Funny)

Opportunist (166417) | about three weeks ago | (#47384641)

Is it still not legal to shoot copyright trolls on sight?

And if not, WHY THE HELL NOT?

This might get someone's attention... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384645)

Okay, I'm just imaging this. I do not recommend it, or want it to really happen. I also predict that some day it may really happen, just because there are enough vandals out there. With a concentrated attack, some group could send out a gazillion DMCA notices that in, say, a week, something 10, 20% of the websites on the internet have pending requests.

As it currently exists, is a trickly steady level of requests?

On the other hand, Big Content Owners and Big Companies would be happy if the internet is morphed back to something like AOL, where 99% of smucks are content consumers, and only entities on a white list get to have a website. Gotta be careful; maybe my prior thoughts will backfire.

A suggested addendum for the GPL (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about three weeks ago | (#47384675)

If you issue a DMCA takedown notice against a product licensed under GPL, you no longer may use any products under the GPL. You have shown that you value milking software for money over its free distribution, and hence you obviously have no need for software that can be distributed openly.

How is this possible? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about three weeks ago | (#47384721)

I still use subversion, why would you host everything on one server?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...