| Here's the actual relevant text from the bill [1]: > upon notification of claimed infringement as described in subsection (c)(3), responds expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material that is claimed to be infringing or to be the subject of infringing activity Immediately contacting the repository owner, and asking them to remove the content themselves within a short window of time, sounds like an expeditious response to my non-lawyer ears. One nitpick as well: > it is safe from any claims that it is itself in violation of the DMCA § 512 of the DMCA provides for immunity from liability for breaking another law, the copyright act. It's not "violating the DMCA", and service providers do not have to take advantage of § 512 safe harbor provisions if they don't want the benefits of doing so. Without this safe harbor, the service provider could be guilty of infringing the copyright of whomevers' property they're distributing copies of on behalf of their user. If they _voluntarily_ opt to meet the § 512 requirements by expeditiously taking down content, then they can't be held liable for that illegal act, even though it did happen. 1: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 |
Except, uh, you cut out the object of this sentence, which is the service provider, not the user.
That is, github, not the user, is supposed to be the person responding expeditiously to remove. Contacting someone is neither "removing" nor "disabling access".
The law is simply not ambiguous here, and github trying to play this game is not likely to go well in an actual court, as much as i'd like it to be the case (i know other companies have been threatened on exactly this point before).