Am I reading the article wrong? The way I read it, Dropbox did NOT issue a DMCA notice to Github; it's system just automatically triggered a notification to a Dropbox user that Dropbox had received a DMCA notice for that file.

It's a simple notification email that does almost nothing in the framework of the DMCA and simply notifies the Dropbox user that their file has been removed. It looks like their file removal system is a bit rigid in that it always assumes that a DMCA notice was received by Dropbox, even when they didn't receive one.

So, there seems to be absolutely nothing wrong here -- literally just a simple mistake.

Are we arguing over whether filing DMCA takedowns on innocuous MIT-licensed code was a mistake? I'm sorry if I communicated that I didn't think it was a mistake. But it's my perception right now that even Dropbox thinks this was a mistake; the guy who wrote this blog post posted more mirrors of the code. Is Dropbox trying to get them taken down?

People make mistakes. In the grand scheme of mistakes, this is an extremely trivial one.

I don't think that the unjustified and unilateral removal of code from someone else's access or threatening anyone with legal action is ever an acceptable mistake, let alone "trivial".

The law is not a toy, and it's not supposed to be wielded casually. The DCMA is certainly not treated with the respect it is supposed to afford citizens, and this is just another example of that.

We disagree. The mechanism for getting Github to take down code is the DMCA request; it's what you use when someone at Github is hosting code that they didn't own that you'd like removed and you feel you have some grounds to have removed.

It was a mistake for them to use a DMCA request here, because the code was MIT-licensed and thus even the author can no longer ask for it to be taken down. But nobody paid legal fees here, nobody was sued, and the code is back online, so, no, I am not amenable to the idea that Dropbox is being abusive.

Continuing to file DMCA requests would be abusive.

I understand the justification for the DMCA's existence. I agree with the measures that Google for instance has put in place both to file DMCA requests and to file counterclaims. Google also goes to great pains to proactively inform users of possible infringement on Youtube. That's all well and good.

However, requests should be filed in good faith, under the understanding that you have standing to file the requests. Clearly Dropbox does not, nor does the original author, having MIT licensed the code himself.

That pretty succinctly summarizes why this is problematic. Everyone here knows that they can't do this. The fact that they prepared letters and fired off the requests anyway demonstrates that they were acting in bad faith.

You don't accidentally reach for the DCMA and accidentally shoot off requests to github.

(and it's on that count alone that i criticize Dropbox, i think otherwise that i totally understand why they think this is a huge problem, and exposes them to legal liability.)

Edit: just read (https://hackertimes.com/item?id=2482803 ) explaining that the DCMA takedown letter that was email was in fact accidentally sent via an automated system. :P

We didn't file a takedown to github -- the author voluntarily took the code down

Someone complained that their fork on Github had been summarily deleted: http://razorfast.com/2011/04/25/dropbox-attempts-to-kill-ope...

Have you read the replies? No context, but insults. Plus the original forked repo on github is still available. Someone complaining means nothing.

No, it isn't used for "some grounds", it's used for content (in this case, code) that directly violates your copyright, period. The DMCA process is very clear, and it isn't for "I don't like $content".

Abuse of the DMCA is already dramatically overblown, and the cavalier attitude of "oh well, deal with it" is a significant part of the problem.

Agreed. I don't mind that he asked nicely and the file was taken down. I DO mind that a DMCA was issued.

There was no DMCA issued!

All that indicates there was is the message received by OP, which claims dropbox as both issuer and recipient of a DMCA notice. That makes no sense -- unless, as claimed by dropbox, it is simply an automated message generated by error.

I think a lot of people in this thread are under the impression that dropbox issued a DMCA request to github, which wasn't even what the OP was claiming.