“github didn’t stole your code, somebody else did and posted it at github”
And if you read the title very precisely, indeed it does say that. That said, it is baity AF with all sorts of rich, tasty read meat: “Corporate Internet”, “Github”, “stolen code”—all the things a good internet mob loves.
Furthermore, demanding (or even just assuming) that hosts can/should act as judges, juries, and executioners is itself an exceedingly slippery slope to hop on. I mean, just look at the Trump campaigns ongoing efforts to get Section 230 revoked because Twitter had the temerity to flag some of his posts as “may be disputed”. (Not even “liar, liar, pants on fire”, mind; merely “disputed”. Good Dog but that’s some thin skin.) Be careful what you wish for; laws of unintended consequences; roads to hell and the paving thereon; etc, etc, etc.
So this is not a “David vs Goliath” narrative, much as it might (accidentally or intentionally) resemble one from the OP’s take. It’s David vs another David, while Goliath very wisely—and legally—stays the hell out that particular boy-girl fight. See also:
Now, whether OP actually needs a lawyer or just legally worded letter to activate the next stage in a DCMA takedown, I’m not sure because US Copyright Law’s not my bullpit either. But, yeah, when someone chooses to violate your copyright, then legal-nastygramming the swine once asking them nicely fails to do squat is entirely up to you.
Considering you can already get yourself template-generated contracts, wills, and other common legal documents online for little or no payment, personally I’d investigate that road first before going straight to the dramatic internet swoon. But that’s just me.
Reread and is still misleading. Github, the corporate entity, did not steal anyone's code. It is complying with United States safe harbor law for a hosting service.
And if you read the title very precisely, indeed it does say that. That said, it is baity AF with all sorts of rich, tasty read meat: “Corporate Internet”, “Github”, “stolen code”—all the things a good internet mob loves.
Furthermore, demanding (or even just assuming) that hosts can/should act as judges, juries, and executioners is itself an exceedingly slippery slope to hop on. I mean, just look at the Trump campaigns ongoing efforts to get Section 230 revoked because Twitter had the temerity to flag some of his posts as “may be disputed”. (Not even “liar, liar, pants on fire”, mind; merely “disputed”. Good Dog but that’s some thin skin.) Be careful what you wish for; laws of unintended consequences; roads to hell and the paving thereon; etc, etc, etc.
So this is not a “David vs Goliath” narrative, much as it might (accidentally or intentionally) resemble one from the OP’s take. It’s David vs another David, while Goliath very wisely—and legally—stays the hell out that particular boy-girl fight. See also:
https://www.eff.org/issues/cda230
.
Now, whether OP actually needs a lawyer or just legally worded letter to activate the next stage in a DCMA takedown, I’m not sure because US Copyright Law’s not my bullpit either. But, yeah, when someone chooses to violate your copyright, then legal-nastygramming the swine once asking them nicely fails to do squat is entirely up to you.
Considering you can already get yourself template-generated contracts, wills, and other common legal documents online for little or no payment, personally I’d investigate that road first before going straight to the dramatic internet swoon. But that’s just me.