And they've done it before[1], about a year ago. This used to be a great source for free (not illegal) content, though it was clear that some links were bad.

[1] Now disabled: https://github.com/iptv-org/iptv

How sad, when the pandemic was roaring this was my go to!

Psst. https://archive.softwareheritage.org/browse/origin/directory...

the m3u still points to the same place though

> Not sure why Github caved - doesn't seem reasonably needed on the face of it...

Because the US DMCA gives them little choice otherwise. If they receive a DMCA request that looks real [1], the DMCA leaves little room for the site to do anything other than take down the content. The content owner would need to file a DMCA counter claim (which is part of the DMCA process) after-which Github can legally restore the content without also taking on possible copyright liability.

[1] and a DMCA from the MPA will likely look very real and properly correct on its face.

> The content owner would need to file a DMCA counter claim

how difficult is it to make a counter-claim in cases like these (which, i think, is a legitimate counter-claim)?

Not difficult at all, but the counter claim has to come from the owner of the github repo, not just anyone.

And we don't know what is in the mind of the repo owner, so we have no idea why no counter has been filed.

DMCA counter-claims require the name, address and phone number of the repo owner which is why fake DMCAs are a well-known method of doxxing anonymous people.

The DMCA is a very flawed law that is easy to abuse and isn't even effective at stopping actual copyright infringement from being rampant on the internet.

My understanding is that you can sue for damages if somebody makes a fraudulent DMCA claim but that's not a sufficient deterrent because lawsuits are expensive and often the damages are small or non-existent. For example, it almost certainly wouldn't be worth it for the owner of this repo to sue the MPA (if an actual attorney disagrees, then I defer to their opinion).

For the MPA, this DMCA is all upside and no risk even though it seems legally dubious. For the repo owner, a counter-claim is a self-doxx that opens up the risk of being sued by the MPA (if they think it's actually worth suing over) for very little upside. Which is why this is such a good example of why the DMCA is a bad law.

While the DMCA isn’t a perfect solution, the absence of the DMCA would have worse consequences. In that case, the reality at best would be that GitHub would simply take your content down with a C&D and you’d have no opportunity to challenge it. But highly likely that GitHub wouldn’t legally risk themselves to host others content, and it just wouldn’t exist.

> DMCA counter-claims require the name, address and phone number of the repo owner which is why fake DMCAs are a well-known method of doxxing anonymous people.

Can this be a business?

A named individual has to "sign" both a DMCA notice and a counter notice.

They do have a choice. If they follow the DMCA process, they have a safe harbor; if they don't they can be a party to an infringement claim.

It makes the most business sense to just follow the process in most cases, IMHO; but they can take a risk if they want.

Look, the developers went serverless, so now they don't have servers anymore they just have a monolithic website/app ecosystem, and any other access or attempted access is illegal systems intrusion, because they said so.

Never mind the massive Lazy Susan Scheme of unicast cloud bandwidth, collusion, and Berkshire Hathaway's money this whole activity entails.