[shadowgovt]

I'm not precisely sure why original author blames "corporate internet" here. Mr-Steal-Your-Script likely shared it to GitHub because that's convenient, but in the absence of a GitHub, they would post it to their own server, ignore his requests to take it down, and he'd be in the same boat he's in now: hire a lawyer to attempt to assert his rights.

The underlying principle---legal representation costs money even if you're in the right---would still hold.

[shadowgovt]

Honestly, this whole blog post goes from bad to worse.

> I have to assume that he has covered his tracks well enough to remain anonymous.

No you don't. John Doe lawsuits exist. You would be on the hook for legal and possibly detective fees, but if you start a legal process GitHub can be compelled to turn over what records they have about the perpetrator.

> Thanks to my experience with Mr-Steal-Your-Script, I am seriously considering keeping any additional code that I write to myself.

That seems wise.

> If you have found this article worthwhile, please share it on your favorite social media. You will find links at the top of the page.

I'm not sure I want to risk it at this point. The article is copyrighted all rights reserved, and we've seen how the author feels about their publicly-posted information being shared.

[stormcode]

That's a bit disingenuous. Asserting their rights over software they wrote that was blatantly stolen doesn't make them a bad person, as you seem to be implying.

[shadowgovt]

Not at all bad person.

Just not a person that I can assume won't slap me with a takedown notice if they don't like the context in which I share their work. I don't have time to want to bother to deal with takedown notices, and it's a wide, wonderful internet with all kinds of other information I could be sharing. The safest course of action for me is to skip it.

[monoideism]

You responded to yourself?

Why?

[shadowgovt]

Additional thoughts expanding on my first post but disjoint enough from it to merit their own sub-thread.