Github links to the EFF letter [0] in the DMCA repo.

This letter spells out in clear, convincing and explicit detail why the RIAA was wrong.

Profit-making Github and Microsoft could have performed this analysis and championed developers themselves, but it was the non-profit EFF that actually did the work.

EFF deserves more credit than just a link for fighting against this shit.

[0] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/11/2020-11-1...

The EFF is probably more qualified to respond to this, actually, since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom works from malicious DMCA notices. Microsoft's best play is just paying them, which other comments indicate they are doing.

The EFF isn't just some non-profit, it's the premier legal entity defending internet freedom. This is squarely in their wheelhouse.

> since they have some of the most experienced lawyers there are when it comes to defending fair-use/free-as-in-freedom

And why would one assume that Github or MS do not have such experts? They undoubtedly have the technical know-how, and the primary findings in the letter are of a technical nature, or even obvious to technically savvy people. And the court decisions referred to are not about fair use or free-as-in-freedom.

Because Microsoft's goals are not directly aligned with fighting DMCA and similar legislation. It takes more than being technically savvy to fight legislation like this; actually, I would say being technically savvy but not experienced will leave you in an unfortunate spot because you'll see through all the copyright stuff but be unable to effectively fight it in court.

The question was rhetoric. They have huge legal departments all over the world. Copyright, licensing and patent contract law are among the most important areas for these companies.

Yes, I've read it. That's why I came to my conclusion. Btw. nearly all of the facts in the referenced letter were expressed in HN discussions just a few hours after the takedown. From my point of view they were obvious.

I agree that they were obvious and, as you say, the HN conversations show that they occurred to many technologists. That said, I think there is an argument to say that the EFF was better qualified to write the letter. The reason being that MSFT wants to look like an impartial content host (to avoid being liable) and the EFF is explicitly an advocacy group. If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers. I completely understand the optics of EFF doing the heavy lifting on this one.

> If MSFT advocates for content on that platform, it could be portrayed as a conflict of interest by the RIAA lawyers

Well, that's what they are actually doing now; factually, it does not matter whether there was a letter by EFF or not; they should have come to the same conclusion even without the EFF; moreover, Github/MS are not accountable to the RIAA; conflicts of interest are not an issue here; in fact, to meet the due diligence a hoster would have to check whether a DMCA request meets the formal requirements and is well substantiated, otherwise the hoster could even be liable to pay damages to the unjustifiably blocked project.

This. Github is acting like the knight in shining armor, but they really didn't do anything except respond to the backlash their complicit no-questions-asked removal caused.

On the contrary, they’re doing a lot, including establishing a $1M legal defense fund for developers and a technical team to review the validity of anti-circumvention DMCA notices. It seems like they’re doing a lot more than just paying lip service to EFF / developer freedom, and they should be commended for it.

They’re correcting a wrong because their reputation took a big hit in the dev community. Now there’s big talk of the dangers of not self-hosting your repo and the monoculture of using GitHub.

Although it probably has good intent, this is largely PR.

Or they just panicked with the RIAA request and needed time to regroup. Cynicism doesn't have to be a hobby.

Being a rube isn't a great hobby either, that's why "fool me once ..." is a famous saying. As are the various versions of "who benefits?".

Pretty decent rules of thumb.

And at a higher level ... who cares if they did it maliciously or because they "panicked", you can't ever know that anyway and either one means you can predict what they will do in similar situations.

This isn't the first frivolous DMCA request GitHub complied with. A company owned by one of the largest tech companies in the world doesn't need to "panic" about something like this.

Sounds like cynicism is your hobby, buddy.

That's not what cynicism means.

Even if largely PR, that's still a million dollars.

After Nat's cynically duplicitous comments and actions, it's hard to view this as anything other than PR. A $1 million expense is not a big advertising expense for github. It was a $7.5 billion sale. Microsoft spend 0.013% of that on this PR piece.

I can't imagine the fallout from this didn't wipe several times that off of github's valuation.

If github had done this before the EFF letter, it would have been something else. With the EFF letter, they have zero liability to reinstating the repo, and are borderline legally required to do so.

We should still incentivize correcting wrongs over letting them stand.