YouTube was just an example as it's easier to show damage and remedy.

GitHub?

- How does this third-party unlawful request not constitute tortious interference between GitHub and all users (or just the paying member who owns this repo)?

  - If not directly tortious interference, this action could absolutely result in the loss of paying members and reputation damage.

  - The very fact we're discussing this means GitHub has suffered damage to their brand.

- How does this resulting loss of source code not diminish the value of GitHub as a company?

As I said, I am not a lawyer and you may have out-lawyered me here already, but I'll do my best to respond. The law prescribes this path for youtube-dl authors to respond to the claim, if youtube-dl authors want to put their names behind the project and make a legal case out of it. That severely limits the calculable damage that is possible, (especially if youtube-dl won't pursue the matter further.)

The claim in the takedown notice that is required to be submitted under penalty of perjury is simply that the party submitting the claim actually represents [copyright holder] and that notice which RIAA submitted also does not make any demonstrably false claims. It does not entirely fit the format of a regular DMCA copyright takedown request for copyright enforcement, it has two sections (one is called "Anticircumvention Violation"). It goes into detail about how the rights holders which RIAA lawyer represents are aggrieved, with language like:

> we have a good faith belief that most of the youtube-dl forks are infringing to the same extent as the parent repository.

# (This is probably the most dubious claim, and since the channel for takedown notices is for copyright enforcement, if your argument had a leg to stand on, I think it's this one. But is it calculable damage? And is the mention of Taylor Swift and other RIAA member artists in the README not plenty of evidence that there is actual infringement that is happening, or at least that it could have been asserted in good faith as it were that those rights holders believed there is a valid claim, as this infringement was happening?)

and

> the youtube-dl source code available on Github (which is the subject of this notice) circumvents YouTube’s rolling cipher to gain unauthorized access to copyrighted audio files, in violation of YouTube’s express terms of service

I think for this to be tortious interference, you would have to demonstrate that there was any intentionally false information in these claims, and that's going to be tough. There is part of a DMCA takedown claim that must be asserted under penalty of perjury, and after re-reading the law and jogging my memory I understand again that for the party sending the takedown notice, that is very limited. (Unlike the counter-claim, which has to assert ownership under penalty of perjury, the claim must only assert that claimant represents an owner as identified in the claim and that the factual claims made in the notice are true, in good faith.) Otherwise it's hard to argue that this notice is anything but an effort to enforce multiple sections of the law as it is written, by asking nicely for a hand through the channels that GitHub has made available for enforcement.

Whether or not it meets the definition of a valid DMCA takedown notice, it is a letter with many demonstrably true factual points, which GitHub has accepted through their channel for enforcement of claims. GitHub has "voluntarily" complied with their interpretation of the law here, in response, and there is an avenue for redress for the authors, if youtube-dl authors feel this is worth pursuing.

You've almost seen the issue:

The DMCA takedown request process is exclusively for content owners and their representatives to gain remedy for their own works. Youtube-DL is not their own work.

The takedown request process is improper: they should have filed in an appropriate United States jurisdiction.

As you've noticed: the format is strange because this is an illegal attempt that GitHub really should not have complied with.

It makes both a copyright claim and a claim about circumvention devices. I don't agree, as you don't, that the copyright claim is valid, youtube-dl git repo clearly isn't hosting any copyrighted materials owned by the RIAA members represented in the letter. But the letter also never claims that it does.

The law does not demand automated enforcement of claims or the establishment of a channel for automated enforcement. That is a compliance device invented by GitHub/YouTube/etc. for managing the substantial volume of requests they must receive with as much transparency as their customers demand and its operational characteristics are not covered by the law, it's simply a tool that GitHub uses to make themselves responsive and in compliance with as little overhead and manual intervention required as possible.

The law does prescribe the "claim, counter-claim" process, which GitHub must respect if they are to maintain their compliance and safe harbor. If they were in the habit of reviewing every claim for validity (strictly not required by the law that insulates them), then I might agree with you, but I think that singling out this one claim and handling it specially would in fact open them up to a great big world of even criminal liability, that their straightforward compliance with the law insulates them from.

The law prescribes almost exactly how GitHub should respond to claims and counter-claims, down to how many days the content may be removed for if a counter-claim is laid.

> If you send a counter-notice, your online service provider is required to replace the disputed content unless the complaining party sues you within fourteen business days of your sending the counter-notice. (Your service provider may replace the disputed material after ten business days if the complaining party has not filed a lawsuit, but it is required to replace it within fourteen business days.)

What must happen now, is youtube-dl either responds with a counter-claim or they don't. Then either a lawsuit is filed by RIAA within 10-14 days, or it isn't. Possibly one is filed later. (They don't waive any rights by not filing the lawsuit right away.) By managing the claim this way, GitHub has ensured at least that they need not be party to the lawsuit. (They will not be on the receiving side of a lawsuit. This does not preclude them from going on the offensive and claiming tortuous interference, but it does protect them from imminent danger.)

So, whether this was a valid claim by RIAA or an illegal attempt at tortious interference is surely a matter for the courts to decide, but suffice it to say I am far less confident than you are that GitHub would be safe from any kind of legal reprisal if they stood fast here, and tried to hold the position that you are arguing without letting the compliance channel play out however that goes.

It is a chilling law and we've known this since it was penned. I don't agree with the law and I am interested to see this play out, I hope this takedown is not the end of the story.

Wouldn't that mean that any wealthy competitor that wants to trash GitHub would just invest money in throwing DMCA takedowns at github.com/* ?

How does that make me, a developer, want to keep up doing business with them?

GitHub has voluntarily complied with this (bad IMHO) law. If that were true, and frivolous requests were being made and dismissed routinely, then GitHub might curb their voluntary "compliance" machine. Is that actually happening, or are you trying to argue that it's a slippery slope?

If bad complaints are not dismissed by the courts, then it's a really bad law, or a bad court. That is a problem for GitHub, granted. If you are shopping for a source code hosting service that will insulate you from such DMCA claims, then sure, GitHub has just shown they won't do that. I guess!

I'm not sure that will have any measurable impact on their business model. They were never to my knowledge in the business of providing that kind of protection, before or after Microsoft.