[rvivek]

Phew, this sounded like a scene from a Tarantino movie. We engage a 3rd party for this service. That said, ultimately, we are accountable for this because it's our reputation is at stake. We are looking into it ASAP and this action will be reverted. We do need to get to the RCA to ensure we are giving strict guidelines on DMCA activity with the 3rd party or perhaps even consider switching to a new one.

[rdl]

You are using a third party to perform an action which at core is counter to how the Internet works, AND you are using the same third party who has acted in bad faith before and did exactly the same thing to another victim of yours, and now you're deflecting onto the third party? This is entirely on you at this point.

[rvivek]

I literally said this in the comment above -- "That said, ultimately, we are accountable for this because it's our reputation is at stake."

[nickysielicki]

I don’t like this phrasing because it sounds like you only care because it’s on the front page of HN and it’s a bad look — “because [your] reputation is at stake”.

You should care because paying someone to disrupt totally innocent open source projects is a shitty thing to do. Filing false DMCA requests on your behalf is also illegal. I like to think that if this never got any attention and your reputation wasn’t at stake, you’d still be adamant about doing the right thing. “Perhaps even consider switching“ providers doesn’t reflect the urgency in getting this right.

[rvivek]

Here's what we are doing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31092085 You are right. HN thread triggered this. And we are working on fixing this at the core.

[eitland]

Better be true this time, because you have been forgiven before, haven't you?

[nickysielicki]

Great response, credit where credit’s due.

[MarkMarine]

That's what people say when they are ceremonially falling on their sword and don't think they really did anything wrong.