Re: DMCA takedown notice

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe 
subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an 
attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is 
illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US 
Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract 
(and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the 
lower court in the 9th circuit:
  >"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides 
that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not 
obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to 
do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES 
contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" 
in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to 
agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
(1) 
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
(2) http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor 
of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay 
person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.
Signed;
--MikeeUSA--



On 2019-02-20 20:10, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination
> with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15
> U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic
> signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is
> defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information
> that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable
> person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be
> signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is
> especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be
> you is posting content using that same pseudonym.
> 
> Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two
> other ways.
> 
> First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the
> service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a
> disposable email address and provided no other contact information
> that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining
> party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17
> U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).
> 
> Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which
> infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your
> source code and the repositories you identified are published under
> GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those
> repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot
> determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would
> constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to
> provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the
> irrevocability of GPL licenses:
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we
> will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff

DMCA takedown notice - GPC-Slots 2 (after GPL Revocation from "John Doe")

[mikeeusa]

**Please provide a detailed description of the original copyrighted work 
that has allegedly been infringed. If possible, include a URL to where 
it is posted online.**

GPC-Slots 2 is a text-mode casino game I created. It includes 5 slot 
machines, 3 table games (Sic Bo, Craps, and 2 variations of the little 
wheel), plus Russian Roulette and a stock market.
You can enjoy it from here: https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/

*What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or 
if the entire repository, the repository's URL:**

http://github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2

**Have you searched for any forks of the allegedly infringing files or 
repositories? Each fork is a distinct repository and must be identified 
separately if you believe it is infringing and wish to have it taken 
down.**

Yes, they are also on other platforms, all uploaded by the "John Doe"

**Is the work licensed under an open source license? If so, which open 
source license? Are the allegedly infringing files being used under the 
open source license, or are they in violation of the license?**

Yes. The GPL. However I had revoked the "John Doe"'s license. The 
license, in this instance, being a bare license.
A license without an interest attached is revocable, in the USA.
The "John Doe" was not in privity of contract with me, and had not paid 
me anything for the work.
It was licensed to him under a bare license, which had then been 
rescinded.
He thus had not, and does not have, any permission to use, modify, 
distribute, nor make derivative works of the aforementioned work.
Remeber: the license comes from me, the Copyright owner. Not from any 
document or record: that is simply a memorandum of the terms.
I have chosen to revoke the "John Doe"'s license, and not issue any to 
him further. He has been informed of this.
His actions there-after and at current are infringing.

**What would be the best solution for the alleged infringement? Are 
there specific changes the other person can make other than removal?**

The only solution that I will accept is you acquiescing to my demand of 
removal.

**Do you have the alleged infringer's contact information? If so, please 
provide it:**

No. You can ask him for it here: 8ch.net/tech/res/1018729.html
You can also contact the "John Doe" through the email he registered with 
you. Don't play dumb.

**Please confirm that you have you have read our Guide to Submitting a 
DMCA Takedown Notice: 
https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/**

I really do not give half a damn about your guide. It is patronizing and 
moronic, it sounds as if it were written by a woman, perhaps a 
paralegal.
The fact of the matter is that a bare license is revocable by the 
grantor.
To achieve an irrevocable license one must generally enter into a 
copyright license contract with the licensor, supported by good 
consideration.
"Obeying the license" is not good consideration as it is a pre-existing 
legal duty.

**So that we can get back to you, please provide either your telephone 
number or physical address:**

Contact me at mikeeusa@redchan.it

I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials 
described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the 
copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into 
consideration.

I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this 
notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am 
authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is 
allegedly infringed.

**Please type your full legal name below to sign this request:**

I'm signing with my long-held nom de guerre. Think of it as an X

--MikeeUSA--

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.

I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John 
Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.

I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.

The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law 
as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically 
associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a 
person with the intent to sign the record."

My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important 
is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.

I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that 
you may know that I am me:
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download

(I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)

In addition to many other places.
Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally 
inefficacious.

I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.

--MikeeUSA--
(Author of GPC-Slots 2)
(electronic signature)

On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> for reference.
> 
> This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> complaining party."
> 
> Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff
> -------------------------
> 
> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
> described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
> consideration.
> 
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
> notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
> authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
> is allegedly infringed.
> :
> 
> As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
> interest, is revocable.
> 
> A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
> "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
> The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
> attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
> the license).
> 
> The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
> "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
> This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
> bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
> 
> The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
> my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
> The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
> permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
> use my property.
> When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
> rescinded by the owner, at his will.
> (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
> grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
> under US law.)
> 
> I have done so.
> 
> I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
> 
> "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
> to him US law.
> "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
> work up, in defiance of me.
> (IE: he would "pirate" it)
> 
> He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
> published works by lawyers studied in their field.
> 
> (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
> libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
> game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
> work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
> (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
> regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
> preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
> the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
> distribute derivative works)
> 
> [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
> long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
> would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
> principal)]
> 
> I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
> GitHub.
> 
> Regrettably;
> --MikeeUSA--
> (electronic signature)
> Jan 29, 2019
> 
> (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
> and bitbucket.org
> 
> Contact information:
> email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
> 
> infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
> The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
> GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
> "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
> communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
> copyright.
> Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
> best of my knowledge and ability.
> 
> Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
> 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
> https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
> 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
> 3) No that does not matter:
> The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
> ("retroactively").
> Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
> The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
> no consideration.
> He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
> It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
> I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
> license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
> was indeed "purchased")
> It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
> property at my demand.
> I have made such a demand.
> 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
> heed my request.
> Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
> all you want.
> They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[Martin Schroeder]

The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
court.

Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
doesn't have it anymore in the near future.

On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <mikeeusa@redchan.it> wrote:
>
> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
>
> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
>
> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
>
> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US law
> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by a
> person with the intent to sign the record."
>
> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is important
> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
>
> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so that
> you may know that I am me:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/
>
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download
>
> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
>
> In addition to many other places.
> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is legally
> inefficacious.
>
> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
>
> --MikeeUSA--
> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
> (electronic signature)
>
> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
> > Hi MikeeUSA,
> >
> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
> > for reference.
> >
> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
> > complaining party."
> >
> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
> >
> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
> > process it expeditiously.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > GitHub Staff
> > -------------------------
> >
> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
> > consideration.
> >
> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
> > is allegedly infringed.
> > :
> >
> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
> > interest, is revocable.
> >
> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
> > the license).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
> >
> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
> > use my property.
> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
> > under US law.)
> >
> > I have done so.
> >
> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
> >
> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
> > to him US law.
> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
> > work up, in defiance of me.
> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
> >
> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
> >
> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
> > distribute derivative works)
> >
> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
> > principal)]
> >
> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
> > GitHub.
> >
> > Regrettably;
> > --MikeeUSA--
> > (electronic signature)
> > Jan 29, 2019
> >
> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
> > and bitbucket.org
> >
> > Contact information:
> > email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
> >
> > infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> > gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
> > bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
> > copyright.
> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
> > best of my knowledge and ability.
> >
> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
> > https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
> > 3) No that does not matter:
> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
> > ("retroactively").
> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
> > no consideration.
> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
> > was indeed "purchased")
> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
> > property at my demand.
> > I have made such a demand.
> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
> > heed my request.
> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
> > all you want.
> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not 
> with the license.

"The law is wrong because it doesn't commit a taking regarding things 
that were not transfered" is what this marxist is saying.


> A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a work provided that 
> certain conditions outlined in the license are met should never be 
> revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
unless the terms of the license itself are broken.

That is so: if you paid for those terms. If you paid nothing you get 
nothing. The linux kernel contributors did not GIVE anything away, they 
allowed USE of a thing THEY own. If they wanted to GIVE their property 
away they could have done so by _TRANSFERING_ it to a non profit such as 
the FSF, or declaring it the domain of the public. They chose to do 
neither.

> Having the possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a 
> license for any other reason than conditions that the licensee was 
> aware of when they accepted the license

There was no acceptance required. YOU are not allowed to use the owners 
property WITHOUT his permission, YOU do not have the right to "accept or 
reject" his dictats regarding his PROPERTY. You must OBEY the owner's 
demands regarding HIS property. There is no contract, terms, negotiation 
here.

YOU give nothing, YOU get nothing.


> would have tremendous negative consequences and
disruptions to many areas of the society.

Society is "women and their (female) children". Why should men care for 
their enemies and slave masters?

How is YOU not getting something for free harming "society"? It's how 
society functions. You must pay Society (Women) your whole life for a 
little taste, and then they send you to prison or the poorhouse once 
they're done with you.

> If the law has a loophole
This is not a loop hole. It is a basic function of US contracting and 
licensing law. Just because you don't like that a gratis non-exclusive 
license that you have benefited under while also trying to use to 
convert the Author's property whilst kicking him to the curb, is 
revocable by that Author, doesn't mean there is some "loophole" here. It 
works as designed: the Copyright owner is a property owner and can 
decide how his property is to be used. If you want a 
non-revocable-outside-the-terms license you must contract for one and 
pay the author good consideration.

> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it 
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.
Who the FUCK is "WE"
WHO is "WE"

"WE" isn't me. And I damn sure am a Open Source progammer, music 
producer, media creator, 3d modeler, game designer, etc.

And I am NOT "WE".

Maybe "WE" is faggot hangers-on like yourself? Who just take from the 
"males" and then try to dispossess them of even their dignity while 
converting their works?


On 2019-03-06 04:48, Martin Schroeder wrote:
> The fact that you even spend this much time on trying to take back
> your gift to the community instead of just accepting your
> responsibility for your own actions is impressive. And unless you sign
> with your legal name and your copyright notices uses your legal name
> as well as details of your location then your claims have no effect at
> all because it is literally impossible to even speculate that you are
> the copyright holder - let alone proving it beyond any reasonable
> doubt that it is the case. So if you are serious about this and not
> just simulating a possible angle of attack on the GPL that somebody
> else could take to illustrate a possible weakness in the GPL, then
> stop hiding behind anonymity and file an actual real claim with a
> court.
> 
> Should your effort succeed then it is a problem with the law and not
> with the license. A license that grants certain rights to a copy of a
> work provided that certain conditions outlined in the license are met
> should never be revocable from THAT particular copy of the work,
> unless the terms of the license itself are broken. Having the
> possibility to arbitrarily revoke rights granted by a license for any
> other reason than conditions that the licensee was aware of when they
> accepted the license would have tremendous negative consequences and
> disruptions to many areas of the society. If the law has a loophole
> like that then the best thing that we all can do is ensure that it
> doesn't have it anymore in the near future.
> 
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2019 at 12:10 AM <mikeeusa@redchan.it> wrote:
>> 
>> You take it down or I sue you, simple as that.
>> 
>> I have revoked the license from a number of people, including the John
>> Doe who has chosen to violate my copyright thence-forth.
>> 
>> I have signed using my 2 decades long held pen-name.
>> 
>> The U.S. Code defines an electronic signature for the purpose of US 
>> law
>> as "an electronic sound, symbol, or process, attached to or logically
>> associated with a contract or other record and executed or adopted by 
>> a
>> person with the intent to sign the record."
>> 
>> My signing with my pen-name suffices for this purpose. What is 
>> important
>> is my intent to sign the record, which I have evinced.
>> 
>> I have also posted the information on my long-held project page, so 
>> that
>> you may know that I am me:
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/
>> 
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/tkdnreq_github.txt/download
>> https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/takedownreq_vs_johndoe-of-8ch.txt/download
>> 
>> (I have also uploaded this response to said /notes/ directory)
>> 
>> In addition to many other places.
>> Your contention that I must do anything greater at this point is 
>> legally
>> inefficacious.
>> 
>> I _DEMAND_ that you take the offending material down immediately.
>> 
>> --MikeeUSA--
>> (Author of GPC-Slots 2)
>> (electronic signature)
>> 
>> On 2019-02-06 21:20, GitHub Staff wrote:
>> > Hi MikeeUSA,
>> >
>> > Thank you for your notices, the most recent of which is included below
>> > for reference.
>> >
>> > This DMCA notice is incomplete. It lacks "A physical or electronic
>> > signature of a person authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an
>> > exclusive right that is allegedly infringed" and "Information
>> > reasonably sufficient to permit the service provider to contact the
>> > complaining party."
>> >
>> > Unfortunately, an electronic signature must be a legal name, not a
>> > monicker or username, and we cannot accept disposable or temporary
>> > email addresses as reliable contact information for a DMCA notice.
>> >
>> > Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
>> > please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
>> > sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we'll
>> > process it expeditiously.
>> >
>> > Thanks,
>> >
>> > GitHub Staff
>> > -------------------------
>> >
>> > I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials
>> > described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the
>> > copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into
>> > consideration.
>> >
>> > I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this
>> > notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am
>> > authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that
>> > is allegedly infringed.
>> > :
>> >
>> > As you may know, In the United States; a license, absent an attached
>> > interest, is revocable.
>> >
>> > A "John Doe" had his non-exclusive license regarding the game
>> > "GPC-Slots2" terminated by the copyright owner (me: MikeeUSA).
>> > The copyright owner may do this as-of-right, unless there is an
>> > attached interest (ie: unless the licensee paid good consideration for
>> > the license).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to belligerently upload a copy of
>> > "GPC-Slots2" to your host, GitHub.
>> > This violated Author's (my) copyright, since "John Doe"'s gratuitous
>> > bare license had been terminated by the copyright holder (me).
>> >
>> > The "John Doe" then proceeded to modify my work, which again violated
>> > my copyright since I had previously revoked his license.
>> > The license flows from me, the copyright owner, not any text. It is
>> > permission to use, redistribute, modify, etc. Instructions on how to
>> > use my property.
>> > When such permission is not supported by any consideration, it may be
>> > rescinded by the owner, at his will.
>> > (/Regardless/ of the "terms". "Terms" are only enforceable against the
>> > grantor if the licensee has paid consideration for them, essentially,
>> > under US law.)
>> >
>> > I have done so.
>> >
>> > I reiterated to the "John Doe" that his license had been terminated.
>> >
>> > "John Doe" then informed me that I "can't do that". I tried to explain
>> > to him US law.
>> > "John Doe" declared that he did not care and would keep the violating
>> > work up, in defiance of me.
>> > (IE: he would "pirate" it)
>> >
>> > He then cited works from a discredited paralegal while I cited
>> > published works by lawyers studied in their field.
>> >
>> > (Note: I make no claim to PERL, the color ansi library, any supporting
>> > libraries, or the -2 split screen function. My copyright covers the
>> > game code of GPC-Slots2. I (MikeeUSA) am the original author of the
>> > work and never signed over copyright to the work.)
>> > (Note: "obeying the terms" (obeying the copyright holders instructions
>> > regarding the use of his property) is not consideration: it is a
>> > preexisting legal duty: outside of the "terms" there is no right for
>> > the licensee to copy, modify, make derivative works, distribute,
>> > distribute derivative works)
>> >
>> > [Additionally "John Doe" registered a fraudulent account under my
>> > long-held non-de-gurre, adding a Code of Conduct ("CoC"), something I
>> > would never do (being opposed to "CoC" for gratis projects on
>> > principal)]
>> >
>> > I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,
>> > GitHub.
>> >
>> > Regrettably;
>> > --MikeeUSA--
>> > (electronic signature)
>> > Jan 29, 2019
>> >
>> > (Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to gitlab.com
>> > and bitbucket.org
>> >
>> > Contact information:
>> > email: mikeeusa@redchan.it
>> >
>> > infringing content: github.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > gitlab.com/MikeeUSA/GPC-Slots-2
>> > bitbucket.org/MikeeUSA/gpc-slots-2
>> > The material is not authorized by me, the copyright owner of the
>> > GPC-Slots2 game code, as I explicitly rescinded the license from the
>> > "John Doe", and he acknowledged that I had informed him of such and
>> > communicated that he would defy my will regarding my property and
>> > copyright.
>> > Everything stated within this above communication is accurate to the
>> > best of my knowledge and ability.
>> >
>> > Some notices to you, github (and now gitlab and bitbucket):
>> > 1) Yes I viewed your page at:
>> > https://help.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice/
>> > 2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
>> > 3) No that does not matter:
>> > The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
>> > ("retroactively").
>> > Just as any bare license, not supported by an interest, in the US.
>> > The "John Doe" is not in privity of contract with me and has paid me
>> > no consideration.
>> > He cannot "bind" me (the grantor) to the terms.
>> > It is his duty to abide by my instructions regarding my property.
>> > I did not transfer my property away, the license is just that: a
>> > license (temporary permission, that can be rescinded unless a "term"
>> > was indeed "purchased")
>> > It is also his duty to cease all use, modification, distribution of my
>> > property at my demand.
>> > I have made such a demand.
>> > 4) Yes I will consider taking legal action against you if you do not
>> > heed my request.
>> > Cite the paralegal from groklaw, ZDnet, the FSF, and the SFConservancy
>> > all you want.
>> > They are wrong on the law and have been wrong for 10 years.

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
request.

This is the very spot that the John Doe has obtained the work.

Secondly it is my exclusive right, as the copyright holder, to control
the distribution of the work as I see fit, and to control the creation
and distribution of derivatives of the work.

I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.

An exclusive right of mine has been violated by the John Doe 
subsequently,
and with notice of the revocation.

A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable in the
United States of America. An interest attaches when a licensee pays
the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits valuable
bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such an 
attached
interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.

Here the John Doe did neither, and does not hold an attached interest
with which to bind me to any supposed promise. Any such promise is 
illusory.

Additionally, the acknowledgement and assent regarding a per-existing
legal duty is not valid consideration.

The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US 
Jurisprudence.

In the Artifex v Hancom cited by proponents of the "GPL is a contract 
(and always a contract)" view much is made of this proclamation by the 
lower court in the 9th circuit:
  >"Not so. The GNU GPL, which is attached to the complaint, provides 
that the Ghostscript user agrees to its terms if the user does not 
obtain a commercial license."

This is patently false. The GPL contains no such language, The offer to 
do business on the plaintiff's website (regarding the Artifex case) DOES 
contain such language The court conflates that language into "the GPL" 
in this case. The GPL, in fact, declares the the user does not have to 
agree to any of it's terms.

I invite you to consult this learned treatise:
(1) 
https://www.amazon.com/Open-Source-Licensing-Software-Intellectual/dp/0131487876
In addition to ENFORCING THE GNU GPL by Sapna Kumar (page 16)
(2) http://illinoisjltp.com/journal/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/kumar.pdf
Legal Implications of Open-Source Software by David McGowan, Professor 
of Law, University of Minnesota Law School:
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=249130

All of which explain in concise terms, easily understandable by the lay 
person, why the GPL is revocable from non-paying licensees.

I am an attorney, and I reiterate my demands.
Signed;
--MikeeUSA--



On 2019-02-20 20:10, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> Unfortunately, a pen name does not suffice when used in combination
> with a disposable email address. Whether under the definition in 15
> U.S.C 7006(5) which you cited, or as used in the DMCA, an electronic
> signature needs to be associated with a person, as that term is
> defined by 15 U.S.C. 7006(8). A psuedonym, without other information
> that would allow us to associate that with a specific, identifiable
> person, does not meet 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i)'s requirement that it be
> signed by an authorized person. As a practical matter, this is
> especially necessary where, as you claim, an account that may not be
> you is posting content using that same pseudonym.
> 
> Even if that were not so, your notice would still be incomplete in two
> other ways.
> 
> First, it lacks "information reasonably sufficient to permit the
> service provider to contact the complaining party," as you've used a
> disposable email address and provided no other contact information
> that would be sufficient to assure we can contact the complaining
> party. This type of reliable contact information is required by 17
> U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(iv).
> 
> Second, your notice does not appear to identify material which
> infringes on any exclusive rights in the original work. Both your
> source code and the repositories you identified are published under
> GPL licenses. You have not identified any way in which those
> repositories violate the GPL, and without more detail we cannot
> determine how redistributing or modifying GPL-licensed code would
> constitute infringing activity. While GitHub is not in a position to
> provide you with legal advice, here is an informative link about the
> irrevocability of GPL licenses:
> https://copyleft.org/guide/comprehensive-gpl-guidech8.html#x11-540007.4
> 
> Once you've revised your notice to include the required details,
> please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable notice, we
> will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff

Re: DMCA takedown notice

[mikeeusa]

I am going to sue your staff for contributory copyright infringement in 
their personal capacity, in addition to you company.
I have given you ample notice to remove the work.

> Moreover, you have not addressed other doctrines, such as reliance or 
> promissory estoppel, which would prevent revocation even in the absence 
> of valuable consideration.

These are equitable defenses. Not defenses-at-law. They are determined 
on a case by case basis. Promissory estoppel is most often "awarded" 
when a defendant has, on the reliance of explicit promises to him by the 
owner, laid out monies to purchase improvements for the affected 
property.

An example is when one builds extra buildings on a piece of land one was 
promised ownership on upon the owners death.  It is much related to the 
old Livery of Seisin which was used in the conveyance of land and is, in 
fact, a modern substitute for it.

There is little relevance between such and a licensee, one of many, who, 
for no outlay, had permission to use a piece of software. Permission 
which was later revoked.

> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to
> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL
> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of
> valuable consideration.

The John Doe would have to prove that there was a contract, it is not 
me, the copyright holder, who's duty it is to show that there was none.
One cannot prove a negative. You know this very well.
It is the consideration (payment) that would create a contract which a 
licensee could attempt to rely upon.
Where there is no such consideration there is no contract.

Here the John Doe admitted that he simply downloaded the work and also 
admitted that there was no contract between him and I
"Thank God", he added.

This is attested to in the original complaint, the John Doe is quoted, 
and his testimony is linked.
However it is not my duty to prove to you that there is _not_ any 
consideration.

That is proving a negative. It is a duty of the John Doe's defense to 
prove that there is such a payment, which there is not.
I was never paid by the John Doe.

You are being completely disingenuous here. You think you are clever, 
but you will be sorry once my legal bill is being paid out of your 
personal expenses for your blatant copyright infringement of my work. 
The courts won't think you're "cute" or "clever".

I have addressed your claim that my signature was invalid. Your 
understanding of what is required of a signature and the purpose of a 
signature is incorrect. A signature simply shows assent of the party to 
the validity of the document. An X is sufficient. Here I have chosen to 
use my long-held pen name, MikeeUSA. I have also published these notices 
at the place of the publication of the work, to give further 
confirmation.

https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/
https://sourceforge.net/projects/gpcslots2/files/notes/

Forewarned is forearmed.

Sincerely,
Signed,
--MikeeUSA--


On 2019-03-07 02:30, GitHub Staff wrote:
> Hi MikeeUSA,
> 
> I've done my best to address your concerns below. Until you provide a
> complete DMCA takedown notice, we are unable to act on your request.
> 
>> My publishing of these notices on my long-held sourceforge account,
>> along side the download link is sufficient for a reasonable person
>> to conclude that I, the author of the program, am the issuer of the
>> request.
> 
> As explained in our previous email, that is not the standard required
> by 17 U.S.C. 512(3)(a)(i).
> 
>> I have chosen to do so in rescinding the license of the John Doe.
> 
> Based on the information you've provided, we are unable to determine
> that any valid license revocation has taken place here.
> 
>> A license, that is not supported by an interest, is revocable ...
>> An interest attaches when a licensee pays
>> the copyright holder for the receipt of a license, or transmits 
>> valuable
>> bargained-for consideration to the copyright holder. Absent such 
>> anattached
>> interest there exists only a revocable-at-will bare license.
> 
> Similarly, based on the information you've provided, we are unable to
> locate facts which would support for your argument that any of the GPL
> licensed code here was granted that license without an exchange of
> valuable consideration. Moreover, you have not addressed other
> doctrines, such as reliance or promissory estoppel, which would
> prevent revocation even in the absence of valuable consideration.
> 
>> The url you link to advances a false legal theory unsupported under US
>> Jurisprudence.
> 
> While they are in easily-missed footnotes, the linked article contains
> citations to three cases which support their respective underlying
> legal theories. Please note the article is provided for informational
> purposes, and GitHub is unable to give legal advice about open-source
> licensing or copyright questions.
> 
> If you would like to revise your notice to include the required
> details, please send back the entire revised notice, and not only the
> corrected
> sections. Once we've received a complete and actionable DMCA notice,
> we will process it expeditiously.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> GitHub Staff