r/webdev • u/FlamedDogo99 • 1d ago
Question Understanding DMCA for personal project
I got DMCA'd on a web project that adds mobile touch support to another project that has been used to infringe on Microsoft's copyright. My project did not contain any of their intellectual property though, and I'm not seeing what they are actually claiming my project did, outside of generally infringing. Do y'all know how to get more info on these claims? I was thinking this would be the place to ask for web-related content.
Edit: The verdict appears to be:
Even though this was not made from the problematic repo, and doesn’t include any of Microsoft’s property, the fact that it could enable someone who ended up with a build without owning the Microsoft product to use it on mobile is enough for them to take it down
This is microsoft investigating microsoft and finding themselves blameless, so regardless of legality it was doomed from the start
I appreciate y’all taking the time to give feedback!
45
u/Beautiful_Primary_12 1d ago
looks like they're going after anything that touches their IP even tangentially, the dmca notice itself is usually all the detail you get unless you lawyer up
10
u/FlamedDogo99 1d ago
That is good to know, thank you. I don’t really have the means to lawyer up, and it’s not that important, I’m just disappointed to have an older hobby project taken down
29
u/kirklennon 1d ago
The DMCA notice doesn't actually identify the specific copyrighted material it claims is infringed and then merely states "The entire repository is infringing." It's a total BS notice that fails the legal requirements, but that doesn't matter because it's heavily automated and also it's essentially a notice from Microsoft to Microsoft, which has no incentive to force itself to follow the requirements. You're unlikely to get any useful details from anybody.
13
u/fiskfisk 1d ago
They're saying that you have a fork of the original project, which means you have a complete copy of the branch of the repository om your account. They're not saying your patch is infringing.
You usually create the fork when you make your patch before making the PR.
As they say, GitHub doesn't disable forks automagically, so they have to call out every single one.
-6
u/FlamedDogo99 1d ago edited 13h ago
Interesting. When making this project I only ever worked directly with a hosted build of eaglercraft, my project being a userscript that shimmed build internals. I would have never interacted with the actual repo itself, unless I’m misunderstanding what you’re saying
edit: I’m obviously misunderstanding something, please say what I’m missing here
1
u/ferrybig 13h ago
Github shares git blobs between forks.
If a user makes a fork of a git repo, then makes a commit in that fork, the commit is available from each fork by just embedding the object id in the url
4
u/DerpyChap 15h ago
From what I can tell your project was to enable mobile touchscreen support for what is a pirated web based version of Minecraft. As far as Mojang and Microsoft are concerned, your project enables this pirated version of Minecraft to be playable on mobile, thereby broadening their potential audience. While you could argue that the code itself contains none of their intellectual property, I still think this at the very least makes your project legally grey, and I would not recommend you try to fight this.
Just to be clear I'm not siding with them from any sort of moral standpoint. I'm just being realistic when it comes to the legal side of things.
2
u/FlamedDogo99 12h ago
This is a good explanation, thank you for taking the time to look and explain.
2
u/jordangrowth 1d ago
Outside my usual area, but I'd reply to the notice and ask for the exact files or commits they're claiming.
5
u/fiskfisk 1d ago
They're linking the exact repository that's a fork of infringing project, which means that OP is hosting the project themselves on their GitHub account.
1
u/FlamedDogo99 1d ago
Yup. My repo shims parts of another project’s build, but hosts none of the build or Microsoft related files. The forks aren’t mine.
1
u/WiggyWamWamm 1d ago
What is the next step in the process? Takedown notices aren’t final
4
u/FlamedDogo99 1d ago
Seemed final to me? GitHub deleted it instantly
3
u/bamaham93 14h ago
That would be because Microsoft investigated Microsoft, and found Microsoft to be justified in their actions.
1
u/Elegant_Shop_6765 1d ago
So their evidence is a URL and a promise that they took fair use into consideration. I could file that notice against your repo tomorrow and it would read identical.
1
0
u/rubixstudios 1d ago
Looking at the projects you've copied into your github, must have touch on some "clone" Nevermind found it, you clone one of the minecraft stuff, ofcourse Microsoft can DMCA it.
1
u/FlamedDogo99 23h ago
So yes, I have fabric mods I’ve made, but again, I have not interacted with the actual project that my repo shims, that being eaglercraft, so I’m not sure if you’re on the right track with that
1
u/rubixstudios 15h ago
Yes follow the chain Eaglercraft, main repo was DMCA'd so yours as a clone will follow.
1
u/FlamedDogo99 13h ago
My repo was a userscript that patched eaglercraft build internals, it wasn’t made from the eaglercraft repo in any way. I understand what you’re saying but I think you’re misunderstanding? Please correct me if I’m wrong though
-1
u/Careless-Honey-4247 1d ago edited 1d ago
maybe the bs law that say hosting a home minecraft server illegal or something, not your fault but esa
edit: even ign say so about esa
1
u/FlamedDogo99 23h ago
I would be surprised, again this project literally was just accessibility shims that you could choose to run on a build of the eaglercraft repo. No code specific to Microsoft
-10
u/Comfortable-Tea1238 1d ago
Small correction: you didn't get "DMCA'd", you received a takedown notice filed under the DMCA. The DMCA is the 1998 law itself, it doesn't send anything.
2
u/-svde- 23h ago
not only is this incredibly fucking pedantic, but it’s fundamentally wrong on a linguistic level. the english lang constantly verbs nouns & acronyms (see: anthimeria). unless you also overcorrect people for saying they googled an answer or fedex'd a box. using the name of the law to represent the takedown action (see: metonymy) is standard comms mechanics and absolutely colloquially correct. if you’re gonna try to play the pedant, at least learn basic linguistics first
1
85
u/ByteOfWood 1d ago
Congratulations, you are now guilty until proven innocent. Behold the power of DMCA