[chewzerita]

I thought GitHub said they were going to assume good faith by the repository and allow it to stay up until a ruling has been decided (as well as funding legal costs), rather than immediately taking it down under the hand of the "rightsholder".

Did I misread their previous statement after the youtube-dl fiasco?

[Griffinsauce]

The relevant part of their "youtube-dl is back" post:

> Given the cost to developers of an unwarranted takedown of code, we ensure we have a complete notice before we take action. We distinguish between code that merely can be used in an infringing way and code that is preconfigured to be used a certain way. We also recognize that code can provide access to copyrighted content without violating the law (for example, fair use). In some cases we can keep a project up because the content identified in the takedown notice is not in fact infringing or circumventing a TPM that controls access or copying of copyrighted works.

So basically: no. But they surrounded it with so much fluff that's its easy to misinterpret.

[ihuman]

I think that was just for section 1201 claims, not all claims.

> "Going forward, we are overhauling our 1201 claim review process..."

https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-yo...

[fireattack]

Nothing will change much, as soon as GitHub is still a user-generated content host. They have to follow DMCA safe harbor practice, which is to obey the claim until proven false, in trade with not get sued themselves as a host.