[pickdenis]

There seems to be legal precedent for holding GitHub liable for distributing software that encourages piracy according to MGM v Grokster[1]. Unless I'm reading that incorrectly, if they can prove that the software "promotes" the infringement, the claim will stand.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MGM_Studios,_Inc._v._Grokster,...

[URSpider94]

No. The maintainers of Popcorn Time might be able to be held accountable, but GitHub is a platform. As long as GitHub follows the take-down process laid out by the DMCA, they have what is called "safe harbor", which means that they are immunized from claims for copyright infringement.

[pickdenis]

Right, I should have added the implied "if they refuse to comply with the notice."

[hnick]

I think it's worth noting that's a US law and the way things are going with GDPR etc, it wouldn't surprise me if another country viewed things differently.

[throwaway2048]

That doesn't mean its subject to the DMCA

[greglindahl]

MGM vs Grokster is different than Someone vs Github vs Popcorn time. There's an extra level of indirection in there.

[pickdenis]

I'm not convinced the courts will see much of a difference between "company (Grokster) that encourages easy p2p piracy through its software" and "company (GitHub) that publicly hosts software that promotes easy p2p piracy".

[greglindahl]

That's certainly possible. But it's important to note that it's not a direct precedent. You'd lose points in law school for that.