Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

    Phoronix: Qualcomm Retracts Its Massive DMCA Takedown Of Git Repositories

    As a follow-up to the story about a Qualcomm DMCA notice taking down 100+ repositories of open-source code on GitHub, Qualcomm has changed course...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTczNzA

  • #2
    This proves one thing... among all them Qualcomm employees there is at least one who is not quite as stupid as the rest.

    Comment


    • #3
      Qualcomm (and every other copyright maximalist that finally relises their mistake): "Yeah, that DMCA notice was a mistake. Please undelete all those repos that we told you to delete."
      It's a good thing git is a distributed VCS otherwise we'd never get those back.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by sdack View Post
        This proves one thing... among all them Qualcomm employees there is at least one who is not quite as stupid as the rest.
        And apparently he/she has enough authority to do some good.

        Comment


        • #5
          I'd like to think Qualcomm retracted those DMCA notices because they actually cared about the authors and fixing their mistake, but I have a feeling this was done mainly to prevent legal issues with the Android kernel.

          Comment


          • #6
            Still, this event is now a separate section in Qualcomms wikipedia page, congrats. How much damage did Cyveillance do to itself, and will it now go bust or will it rename itself?

            Comment


            • #7
              This wasn't Qualcomm's, but their patent infringement rep's wasn't it? Which means Qualcomm's only mistake here was allowing that company too much leeway in demanding takedowns without checks for proper investigation in to infringements. This incident seems to me to be akin to a cop busting you for possession of illegal substances while walking down the street.

              Comment


              • #8
                QinetiQ stock appears to be headed downwards after a short spike. No idea if it's long-term.
                (Cyveillance is a subsidiary of QinetiQ, which seems to be a British defense company, so I'm guessing that at most QinetiQ will get shed of them.)

                Also: yeah, Qualcomm's mistake was giving them free rein.
                I wonder if any other companies will learn from this.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Penalty of perjury

                  Correct me if I'm wrong (not from the US) but doesn't the DMCA takedown request have the line: you declare UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf?

                  Doesn't this mean some steep fines for false takedown requests?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    but someone would need to sue them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by deimios View Post
                      Correct me if I'm wrong (not from the US) but doesn't the DMCA takedown request have the line: you declare UNDER PENALTY OF PERJURY that the information in your notice is accurate and that you are the copyright owner or authorized to act on the copyright owner's behalf?

                      Doesn't this mean some steep fines for false takedown requests?
                      But they didn't break this. They are the copyright owner and are authorized to act. Just that their act was unnecessary and caused loss to other parties. Hopefully that is covered by some other clause there. But not this one.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        If there are no fines ...

                        Originally posted by AnonymousCoward View Post
                        but someone would need to sue them.
                        ... can we just issue a DMCA notice for the Microsoft website? Just for fun? And take it back after a week or so, saying "Sorry, was a mistake...".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by lowflyer View Post
                          ... can we just issue a DMCA notice for the Microsoft website? Just for fun? And take it back after a week or so, saying "Sorry, was a mistake...".
                          Sure, go ahead... but only if you don't mind having several dozen $5000/hour lawyers knocking on your door 10 minutes later...

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            @droidhacker: Do you imply that Qualcomm has now several dozens of $5000/hour lawyers knocking at their door? If this is the case, then I be able to sleep a lot better tonight (with a happy grin on my face...)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by dragorth View Post
                              And apparently he/she has enough authority to do some good.
                              I doubt it has got anything to do with authority. Anyone who is a bit smarter will automatically stand out as the authority over the rest.

                              Rather someone must have paid attention and taken an interest to what his or her minions are actually doing, which does not happen automatically. Authorities will often not care unless some alarms go off.

                              It could well be that we have to thank the press for it.
                              Last edited by sdack; 07-08-2014, 12:31 PM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X