[not2b]

Unfortunately the DMCA also covers technology that works around DRM, not just copyright violation. Anyone wanting to share any anti-DRM software is advised to use a non-US site; GitHub probably doesn't have a choice about things like this once someone reports it.

The notice didn't claim copyright violation. It claimed (accurately) that this code worked around their DRM.

[kmeisthax]

By "non-US" you probably mean "non-WTO". WIPO/TRIPS was specifically used to policy-launder DMCA 1201 into US law despite the objections of the tech community in the US. EU law has very similar provisions and I'm told "copypaste 1201 language into your local law" is a common ask during USTR negotiations.

[not2b]

I'm not competent to advise people on which countries are "safe" for this purpose, perhaps others know.

[Mindwipe]

To all intents and purposes there aren't any that are functioning countries. Iran maybe, best of luck getting your code hosted there in an widely accessible way (IIRC Iran had membership until 2016 and technically does have a prohibition as a result but doesn't enforce it really).

There are a few very small island nations, North Korea, and Monaco/San Marino, though I think Monaco has an anti-circumvention provision anyway.

Israel's implementation is full of holes but they still have one, technically.

[ryukafalz]

Except it started with:

> Yes, I am the copyright holder.

[not2b]

Read the rest. In context they are saying that the code allows people to circumvent the DRM and access their copyrighted works. So it's an anti-DRM claim not an ordinary copyright claim.

[im3w1l]

I think there are two separate issues here. Is the code illegal? Yes* Is the takedown notice correct and truthful? No*

*Ianal etc.