Is there any evidence that GitHub is automatically removing reheated copies? Last I saw, GitHub had posted a comment asking folks not to re-host, at risk of being suspended, but there was no indication they’d started any kind of automated scanning.

Beyond that, it seems like a very community-hostile move to intentionally embed commit hashes that would even potentially cause a user to get banned from another platform if they push a copy of the code there. This doesn’t stick it to GitHub, it sticks it to the users of your repo.

It depends if you want to be nice to everyone, it burn some bridges to make a point. The point being that there shouldn't be censoring of specific hashes.

Honestly if a user did get banned for sharing that poisoned repo, I would still put 95% responsibility for that on GitHub. But it's not happening yet as far as I know.

It'll be a question of how many reposts they see. If enough people keep reposting with throwaway accounts, they will have no other choice but to start scanning automatically.

ROT13 the entire repo?

If they figure it out, then ROT14 it.

If they figure that out, encrypt it and post the key somewhere that blocks the offices of Github.

If they figure that out, we'll still find a way to build a better mouse.

If someone wants you to leave, it's usually best to leave. Good riddance to them if you find yourself in that position.

Far better would be to spend your efforts finding which RIAA members pressed the RIAA to make this takedown. Follow the money, cui bono, etc.

Why is it best to leave? Protests are a good thing, sometimes, and making sure it is on GitHub in some form or another is a form of such protest. At some point the relevant parties will have to realize that this mouse of a million engineers will always outsmart them. At some point they will have to realize that advocating for FOSS and DRM at the same time is hypocritical.

Rosa Parks was asked to leave, but she didn't leave.

People have been protesting against Facebook's policies almost since it was created (real-name only, no nudity even in classical art pieces, ...). That didn't change a thing. Facebook kept in-line with its policies, people stayed, and network effects only cemented the monopoly.

Github is extremely close to having a monopoly, leaving is the only way to prevent it from happening. If it becomes one, it has no incentives to listen to a few protests.

GitHub is not the instigator, as far as we know (MS is apparently a member of the RIAA though). I am as amused by the clever ways to get youtube-dl back onto GitHub as anyone else, but it's protesting the wrong thing in the wrong place.

The problem lies with whichever member organizations inside the RIAA (or nonmember orgs friendly with the RIAA) convinced them to file the takedown. Most of us aren't positioned to find that out, but that's where the most can be gained. Maybe the EFF or similar orgs can help. Then we'll know what the true motives were, and how to address them.

At the same time, technological measures can show it to them that they can't feasibly take it down and that they're fighting a losing battle. At some point the RIAA will just have to accept defeat because honestly it's not that much work to defeat their DMCA takedowns.

Right now they're issuing what, 1 takedown notice to GitHub? When we make that 100,000 takedown notices, some in ROT13, some in ROT24 on an Israeli server, some in RSA encryption on a Chinese server with keys published on Russian servers, maybe they'll just be too overwhelmed with paperwork at that point.

Add some honey-pots with unrelated content and counter-sue them for circumventing encryption on copyrighted content. Because how would they know what is encrypted unless they circumvented it without permission ... unless they perjured themselves?

It's probably related to Google killing^W sunsetting Google Play Music and moving everyone to Youtube Music..

Joke's on them, I already ROT26 all my repos.

No, no. If they figure it out, you send THEM a DMCA notice for circumventing encryption to gain access to copyrighted content. Of course, you write your license (unencrypted) as open source except for specific companies.

Edit: On second thought, I just visited riaa.com . How about we lobby jQuery, WordPress and bootstrap to add a specific exclusion to their licensing? Now, this wouldn't affect the RIAA immediately, only the next time they update.