Not first time, it's stupid how GitHub accepts anything as DMCA request.

Don't blame GitHub, blame the DMCA!

I can still blame GitHub for not fighting against the DMCA with us.

I blame both. Even without any copyright violation GitHub takes the DMCA request.

You have to take the DMCA request or else you lose safe harbor.

the problem is when the safe-harbour entity doesn't actually try to protect their content creators, but blindly accepts any takedown. Youtube is notoriously obedient - to the point where it can threaten content creator's livelihood (see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QfgoDDh4kE0 for a famous one).

Doesn't matter - they have to accept the requests and sort it out later to retain safe harbor. That's just the way the law was set up. The whole point is that they claim neutrality - they are the carrier of the information, not screeners or judges of it. The legal back and forth is between the the entity posting the content and the entity submitting the DMCA takedown. After the fact, YouTube to Github can and should and sometimes do help fight back against abuse.

Is there any incentive or law that causes Github to have a DMCA web form?

If it's possible, then it would be a good act of protest to require individually signed (by an actual person with a pen, not a picture of a signature), individually snail-mailed requests. This would at least make the process take O(n) time and O(n) money, making it a bit harder to abuse.

Yes, by following DMCA procedures Github stops being liable for its users copyright infringement actions (safe harbor). Should Github not follow procedures defined in DMCA, Github would be on a hook.

I'm describing a form of malicious compliance. Is there a legal requirement that the request be a web form? Or is it allowed to provide only a mailing address?

It can be anything that provides a commercially reasonable way to contact the entity. So fax/p.o. box/email/web form etc all work.

How much flexibility do they have?

It's a real question, can they easily challenge some requests and maintain their safe harbor status?

It's not up to Github to challenge them. It's up to the person(s) responsible for the "violation". In this case, Github is just the messenger (AIUI).

My question is whether there is even a provision in the law that enables Github to challenge the notice.

Not if the notice follows the requirements of DMCA.

I mean, they could probably challenge requests that are obviously invalid like the Admiral one. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=can+you+copyright+a+domain+name (No, you can't)

If you think this is about copyright in a domain name you're missing the point. The DMCA is being used because uBlock is blocking a technology [script download] that is used to prevent access. uBlock is working like a DRM remover (the argument goes) and so is committing contributory copyright infringement.

Modifying uBlock mitigates the argument but doesn't entirely remove it. For example if the people who control uBlock control a third-party source that allows the same preventions to be implemented then technological changes have been made but the situation is legally homologous (AIUI, IANAL).

IMO uBlock need to provide facility for a domain to be blocked but say "search online to find blocklists" and have no legal associations with the blocklist maintainers; akin to how emulator sites manage ROMs, they stay as legal separated from them as possible. Putting Google in the middle makes getting sued harder, in theory Google is linking the people to the tech/info that enables the alleged infringement.

Remember DMCA is strongly weighted towards the accuser in the initial instance and that a service provider has to take down content in order to maintain their safe-harbour protections, leaving it to the alleged infringer to counter the accusation (guilt until claim of innocence).

I'm asking a specific question about the workings of the DMCA.

Does your link address that question? Is your opinion on the DMCA well informed?

Why people are trying to complicate things? requirements.txt are much simpler and better.

First, you need to take care of the virtualenv manually. This tool avoid that. You can completly ignore the virtualenv. You don't even have to populate requirements or learn about pip freeze.

Secondly, this tool allow you to freeze your requirement list at specific versions. So in your req file, you have the name of the packages you depend on. Bon on the req lock, you get all the pulled dependencies recursively with the version you are using right now. The first one let you dev more easily. The second one deploy more easily.

All that, for less complexity. Win win.

Netflix already have to did it in Brazil due cable TV lobby pressure.

I'm happy to not have to import 3 libraries anymore (2 that aren't part of standard library) to see if one date is greater than another or to add few days to a date.

They both import all three under the hood.

I already faced some of mentioned problems using Arrow, I'll give pendulum a try tomorrow.

> I could use a paid provider, but they are probably still more likely to disappear in the future than google is likely to randomly ban me.

That was my main reason to still use Gmail till today.

From now I'll be making regular backups, and always use an email address on my own domain, so I can freely change provider without much problems.

That was the first thing I thought was "maybe I have uploaded some copyrighted material to Drive or triggered some filter".

I also suspect of a problem with my credit card.

But Google refuses to tell me what was wrong.

I'm also looking to move my domain from Google Apps, I'll consider Posteo. Thanks.

>The only con is that you can't use your own domain.

I was paying Google Drive to get extra space for emails too :(