The owner of the copyright did not send the DMCA Infringement notice to Airtel, India, they sent it to GitHub, San Francisco, California, where their copyrighted property was being served.
If anyone else were to do this, it would be called "hacking his website" and the group responsible would (theoretically) be brought to justice. However, since it is an ISP, they get to call it "monetizing their service"
Even worse, this is a 3G network, so they're not just monetising, they're artificially inflating their customers' usage by forcing them to down content they didn't request on a service that is typically directly billed by utilisation.
Every user of Airtel
Exactly, which is why he would need to post to GitHub (or somewhere else) - not every person interested in or capable of analysing the code is a customer or Airtel (I know I'm not).
DMCA has power over any site that hopes not to have to hire an army of reviewers and moderators just to serve user-generated content. The problem isn't necessarily with the copyright takedowns process, which in this case seems to be quite justified (it's copyrighted, clear) but when it is abused by censorious thugs and their lawyers.
This one seems pretty clear, user infringed copyright.
You can't just go posting other's source code on the web without permission. There are other, better ways to deal with this asshattery.
There are two parts here, neither of which alone add up to the combined outrage (though both spurious): 1) Company A writes code to inject ads to documents, and Company B decides to inject these into pages from other people's services. Whether B got permission from A for this exact purpose we don't know, but it could just as likely be embedded in pages B serve themselves. Note, the injection part here is suspect, but unrelated to the DMCA notice. 2> Owner of said code (Company A) blows his lid that company property is openly accessible at GitHub. and uses appropriate tools to deal with it.
If this is one party injecting their own code into a HTTP session without consent, then objecting to the subsequent source disclosure then fine, let rip, but the context here is critical, and without a view of the source we can't assume more than we know: This is a hostile act, intentionally modifying content in-transit, and more than just compressing JPEGs for mobile network consumption, it alters functionality and potentially the security of the user's device.
He is well within his rights to ask for help from all and sundry in determining the potential harm, especially if (as it appears, I tried and failed) the file can only be downloaded from Company B's network and anyone willing to assist would be unable if not a subscriber. The Net Neutrality rules in India back him up, but unfortunately for him the DMCA covers GutHub under US law. It does protect him from the asshatted letter that makes threats if he continues to exert his rights under Indian law. Flash Networks' conduct here is mixed, but Airtel is incredible, and so far they remain uninvolved and unthreatened.
The moral of this story is: 1) The TSA and assorted related three letter agencies don't give a crap about due process or warrants anyways
The owner of the laptop had even been arrested previously and given testimony regarding his activities.
Ahem, TFA says Yang was arrested and provided testimony, Kim is the subject of this ruling. He never implicated himself in anything and it is only by reference from Yang that he was noticed and investigated. The part about the investigating officer having zero suspicion that he would actually be involved in criminal activity during his stay but only thought that if Kim might have this search would find it, as well as hopefully recording proof of Yang's comments and interactions. If this man was a threat, the fact he was not monitored in any sense of the word during his stay negates that.
Fishing expedition on a device that the agent clearly knew in advance would be a rich store of information using a procedure and supposed exemption that cannot be justified on exit from the country.