[bm3719]

Any plausible (and not expensive) recourse in such situations?

I've had a game server emulator project DMCA-ed previously, and my team's casual research couldn't come up with any solutions. Despite the takedown's text being factually incorrect (it was all rewritten code, not proprietary), there seemed to be no one to appeal to. Instead, we just moved it off GitHub with no further negative consequences. This resulted in some lost visibility and broken links though.

[toast0]

Not really. I don't think Github has any continuing service obligation to you, especially as a non-paying user. Taking Github to court to find out for sure is probably expensive.

In theory, you could provide a counter notice, and Github says they will reenable repos after two weeks of a counter notice unless the claimed owner provides Github with notice of a lawsuit. But you may want to get legal advice before you do this.

Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case.

[ajsnigrutin]

> Also in theory, the DMCA provides for damages for improper notices, but collecting on that would require a most likely expensive to start court case.

Is there some "small claims" type of court where that would do that with minimal cost for the damaged person? I know way too many people who posted stuff on youtube that was either clear fair use or clearly not the copyrighted content, but youtubes automatic ID of music muted or removed their videos... If each of those could start a process for eg. $100, and got their $100 back + all the lost monetization (not a lot, but doesn't matter), companies would quickly change the way they operate.

[Mindwipe]

Proving fair use is legally complex, and to be blunt it is very possible you are incorrect - in any case, it is unlikely a lower court would judge on it at all given the complexity rather than referring it to a higher court (note this is a generalisation as parent doesn't identify the territory they are in, but it's a reasonable one).

Also note that YouTube's ContentID process is not a DMCA process. It is a privately negotiated system that YouTube have come to a commercial arrangement with various rightsowners in order to minimise their legal liability. You have no come back against this, because they are not DMCA notices at the first stage to be improper.

If you want a video hosting service that is going to have your back on this then you are probably going to need to use one that is more expensive than free, and quite possibly demonstrate that you have indemnity insurance.

[flangola7]

It might be expensive but the false claimant would end up paying the legal bills

[gnopgnip]

Did you submit a counterclaim?

[ipaddr]

Where did you move to?

[bm3719]

Self-hosted GitLab with a <project-name>.com domain.