Otherwise HN comments usually provide the rest. News/blog posts with loaded headlines can often derail conversations as much as provide context. Which is why I'm hesitant to expect HN's frontpage to be an editorialized newspaper or heavily moderated forum that better serves the low engagement crowd.
If you have an actual better source then by all means, share it. I'm sure dang will consider swapping it.
There is not even proof/details it was a DMCA takedown request. Given the subject matter, of course wouldn't be surprised, but all you are going to get in the comments is pure speculation/blathering because there is simply no information about what's going on.
>Collection of publicly available IPTV (Internet Protocol television) channels from all over the world.
I'm not asking the submitter to editorialize the headline, which is what is frowned upon. In fact, the headline already is editorialized, because it says this was a DMCA takedown, but there is no evidence to support that. I'm asking to either:
1. Submit to an article source that actually has more information.
2. Submit a text submission, where it's fine to add details of what's going on, or even to ask for more information. E.g. this happens all the time for users who were cut off from some service, then they explain the situation and ask for assistance.
https://archive.org/details/github.com-iptv-org-iptv_-_2022-...
https://old.reddit.com/r/IPTV/comments/j1l8ps/iptvorg_hit_wi...
https://web.archive.org/web/20201117192948if_/https://codelo...
https://web.archive.org/web/20220925054954if_/https://iptv-o...
The parent honestly believes that this takedown is not copyright-related. Thought experiment: What are the other ways a repository containing only URLs could violate Github ToS.
Then again maybe he wants us to read his mind.
Doesn't sound like it.
When I clicked on the link and saw the placeholder page, I was wondering "wtf did anyone bother submitting this useless link?". My expectation was the link would have been to the DMCA notice sent to GitHub, which would have been more useful.
Next step was to look for further info in the HN thread instead.
Anyway, while your post has some useful links, the parent's post is also correct and it's a bit crappy to claim things about it which aren't actually in it.
1. on what iptv-org/iptv actually is/was.
2. that corroborates that this was actually a DMCA takedown request
3. that actually provides any additional context at all about when/why this happened
I'm guessing maybe there are some articles/forums/etc. that have some more context. If so, you should submit links to those instead. If not, and you just want to bring attention to this, submit a text submission to explain more details around what's going on.