Comment by penskymaterial
13 days ago
You want to sue people for blocking ads? Did I read this correctly?
If you want to make proprietary software that's cool, but client-side JavaScript was a terrible choice. The cat is out of the bag.
There's a reason software for which you purchase a license key generally doesn't give you source code outside rock-solid legal agreements.
You did not read it correctly. Author stated that people are modifying and redistributing their code in an unauthorized manner.
Did those people sign a legally-binding end-user license agreement?
Because what I see is essentially "they're storing stolen property" but the burden of proof is on the author to prove it was, indeed, stolen.
I imagine the bar for that is pretty high otherwise anyone could weaponize DMCA to target their competitors' repositories.
You seem to be thinking about "adblocker running in browser", since you brought up EULAs.
That's not what OP alleges - they are saying people are redistributing modified versions of OP's copyrighted code. DMCA is an appropriate measure in such a situation, but it's unclear why OP's DMCA takedown was rejected by GitHub. Without more detail, it's hard to comment further
1 reply →
People are absolutely abusing the DMCA process.
https://reclaimthenet.org/kiwi-farms-dmca-subpoena-anonymous...
> You want to sue people for blocking ads? Did I read this correctly?
That is an extremely disingenuous and bad faith interpretation of what OP has said and I think you know it. You want to be edgy? Go comment on Reddit.
OP is rightly frustrated that their copyrighted work, that they’ve been working on full time for over a decade, is simply being ripped off by people and GitHub refuses to do anything about it.
Publishing source as client-side JS when millions are out there looking to rip you off at every turn is a losing proposition. And I think you know it.
Shifting blame to GitHub is absolutely idiotic.
Try removing locks from your doors in a high crime area (which is what the Internet is) then being indignant when the police can't stop all the criminals stealing your property.
'losing proposition' is irrelevant. The law is clear in this case, and the law makes Github's obligations exceptionally clear. By refusing to act, if the DMCA notice was valid, Github is breaking the law and forfeiting their safe harbor status.
2 replies →
No, you did not read this correctly
I'm a solo dev who just shipped my first iPhone app, and reading this is a good reminder of why I went the App Store route. My code ships as a compiled binary, so there's no source for anyone to copy and republish. I pay Apple's cut and complain about review delays like everyone else, but never having to file a DMCA takedown against someone reselling my own work is worth it.
Just replying that I vouched for this post, and to ask others to please restrain their pique and not flag it into oblivion again.
This is a good faith contribution to the discussion, and frankly, the way things are going, the point it raises is something most of us need to consider.