Actually, in many cases I do. College-age kids who are posting in reply here today likely didn't care about stuff like legal codes, what it was like to set up a website with a text editor, or the level of paranoia that existed among at least the more intelligent folks who cared about stuff like copyright. Remember, you are talking the era when Unisys was suing everybody simply for putting a GIF image on their web page (simply because it was encoded with the GIF data format.... that had nothing to do with what the image actually was).

There are problems with the DMCA, but the complaints I'm seeing here are mostly unfounded and a demonstration of ignorance too.

They also lose their safe-harbor status if they refuse to put the content back with a counter-notice (part of the DMCA too). The big media guys simply depend on people being ignorant of the law and not bothering with that next step in the legal process. For something like GitHub with a mass automated pile of take-down notices, I doubt once you send the counter-notice that anything more would happen for very similar reasons.... you are small fish that they don't want to bother with an actual lawsuit.

Really, the take-down notice procedure in the DMCA is IMHO one of the better things in that law as it means you don't automatically need to hire a lawyer if somebody is getting pissy about something you've put on-line. I agree that some abusive practices of some companies should be smacked down by a judge and perhaps some corrective legislation imposing penalties for its abuse should be imposed as well, but I consider that to be tweaks on what is really a pretty good law.

The alternative is that you simply get a summons to appear before a judge. I don't think that is necessarily a very good alternative to the DMCA take-down procedure.

An accidental take-down notice is fine. File the counter-notice to have the content restored, at which time if they persist and file a lawsuit in court it no longer is considered accidental and the standard is moved much more into your favor if they are simply trying to file thousands of these kind of lawsuits. Judges don't like class-action lawsuits where the defendant is a class of people of mostly "John Does".

The takedown process established by the DMCA, while abusive, does have provisions to fight back if you get some asshole filing frivolous copyright claims against you. Let's be honest here, many times when these are issued there are often entire classes of content that are infringing.... thus the sometimes automated bots that send out these take-down requests.

If it happens to you, send a counter notification to the ISP demanding the content back.... that is also a part of the DMCA and something that gives you as a content creator to fight back if something like this happens.... even if you are one of the "little guys". If the idiots who sent the original take-down notice want to continue in a court room, make sure everything is kosher first (don't bother if you are simply posting MPEG files of the latest film in theaters) and then simply say "I'll see you in court if you want to continue."

If what you are doing is on the grey side of the law, you know what you are doing anyway. If you get a take-down notice on something you really created yourself and it is original or even something of legitimate fair-use, you can fight the system. The problem is that you need to fight when that happens and push back. You are a victim if you let the bullies win.

While anybody can issue a DMCA take-down request, you can also fire a counter-protest to any such action as a content holder. All it takes is to send a formal letter to the ISP and demand that the content is restored. The ISP is then found blameless and if the person who issued the take-down notice wants to go further they need to take the whole issue to a judge and resolve it through a normal legal process rather than getting the ISP caught in the cross-hairs.

If you do file a counter-protest though, make damn sure you really do have copyright licensing on everything you are asserting is legal, or that you are on the very sunny side of fair-use (such as a legitimate parody or even a review/commentary.... as appropriate) for whatever content you try to issue the counter-protest.

You don't need to roll over and play dead claiming you are helpless with the onslaught of stupid DMCA requests.

While not about GitHub, this article about the DMCA and its application of take-down notices done on YouTube (which is notorious about such things) and what you can do in a similar situation is very informative:

http://gamasutra.com/blogs/StephenMcArthur/20140624/219589/

You really don't need to roll over, especially for something really stupid like a take-down request applied on Linux Kernel code.

If you added the defamatory information thinking it was factual due to widespread publication by multiple reliable sources, courts would have a difficult time trying to enforce libel in this situation. Again it depends on the quality of the source (a publication like the Daily Mirror is definitely less reputable than say the BBC... in part due to the fact checking that some news organizations perform when researching somebody or something) and your role as an author in spreading that information.

I agree that you might still be liable for defamation, but it would be a strong defense in your case. I would think even in Australia that a judge & jury would be able to accept your reasoning for publishing that sort of information if you added it in good faith, but the guy who initially published falsehoods while working for a supposedly reputable news organization would not. There have been scandals in the past from people who have engaged in similar smear campaigns by very prominent reporters who were publishing stuff later proven to be a complete fabrication and falsehood. One was even the "chief reporter" for a major television network in America.

I chuckle inside when I see somebody post in an article or webiste the phrase "Wikipedia says....." like is sometimes done for the Oxford English Dictionary.

It is amazing that in spite of the process, so much is accurate on Wikipedia and even far more up to date than any paper publication could ever be.

I dare you to show an actual case of this happening where the "higher level" editor is not already under some sort of substantial ArbCom restriction or had it in the recent past.

Seriously.

No doubt some new contributors are discouraged from participation by overzealous editors, but abuse should be reported and it is usually dealt with rather harshly when pointed out.

This should also not be an excuse for not participating on Wikipedia with bona fide edits with new information. I would recommend avoiding popular articles (like George W. Bush or Barack Obama), as a new user mainly because of the churn rate on those articles, but irresponsible behavior by bullies is just that and can be dealt with. I wouldn't mind dealing with a specific example myself.

If those lies and false statements are made by what are assumed to be reliable sources (aka published in a major newspaper or in a trade journal/magazine) the liability would be upon the original author, not somebody who put that into a tertiary publication like Wikipedia. On the other hand, the Wikipedia author should be careful and try to second source sensational information (aka "Billy Graham was homosexual in spite of his homophobic rants") to confirm if it might be true or not. You should also be careful if it is from a dubious source... like a random tweet you can't confirm even is from the person who supposedly made the statement. A Wikipedia editor who uses such material deserves to have their ass landed in a court room to defend negative statements if that is the case.

I don't see it as having a chilling effect. Wikipedia is supposed to have every article with a neutral point of view. If some editor is insisting upon bias, this lawsuit... assuming it is successful... will embolden admins and ArbCom to administer harsher measures or suspend accounts when people consistently start introducing deliberate biases into articles which flout the principle of NPOV.

This is also one reason I don't mind editing Wikipedia with my real name, as I stand behind my words I write there. It is unfortunate that some people hide behind supposed anonymity for the sake of doing stuff that they otherwise wouldn't do if they were standing next to you.

Because of the rules (on Wikipedia) needed for notability, you would be hard-pressed to say that anybody who has a full article saying more than a sentence or two is anything other than a public figure. Sure, you could write up an article about your 2nd grade teacher and say "Mrs. Doubtfire is a stupid dumbass", but that article would also be deleted immediately because there would be no sources at all.

If you have multiple newspaper and magazine articles about you as a person, it is very likely you are a public figure by this definition even if the judge may not have heard of you before.

I doubt even for the Apollo 13 flight that having a scrubbed launch with the astronauts being pulled down from a Saturn V merely sitting on the launch pad would have received any air time.... or even an announcement by the PAO other than "we'll try again tomorrow".

It would be news if the Orbcomm satellites went off course and slammed into Miami or Orlando. That isn't what happened yesterday.

This isn't all that uncommon. Technical delays happen for everybody doing a launch. The only difference here is that SpaceX is open about each launch attempt and has a ravenous band of fans following each bolt and syllable being uttered by the launch control team.

I used to watch Shuttle launches, and trust me when I say that the stuff SpaceX is going through here is very routine and normal. ULA faces the same problems with its launches, including multiple scrubs even for long standing vehicles that have been launched hundreds of times.

It even happens for the Chinese, but they don't announce a launch until after it happens. That makes them look awesome instead of bumbling fools.

BTW, SpaceX does check the vehicle for technical glitches before launch. Why do you think it was scrubbed in the first place rather than blowing up spectacularly about 40 feet above the launch pad?

Launches are news. A scrubbed launch isn't. I consider that to be a difference.

It is almost like reporting that a thunderstorm was spotted in Florida today. Is that news?