zlacker

The EFF would still need a defendant to defend. It sounds like that person is not interested in pursuing a legal battle, so we have already met the end of this road.

>>thomas+(OP)
I see this attitude a lot where legal is involved (which is a lot of places). It's a very peculiar sort of "if this then that" which seems to subvert normal human communication. E.g. in this case, a standard human train of thought would be that, because one of the reasons given for not pursuing it is funding, the EFF might offer to fund this person, who, circumstances now being different, might then agree to be the defendant. Now maybe there is a problem with that, but my point is that your response seems to choose not to acknowledge it. I don't think it's malicious - I think there is just something about the way legal works that trains people to think and speak in this slightly non-human way.

>>thomas+(OP)
They could transfer the ownership of the code to someone else. This person/entity could put it back up and wait for Mazda attacking them.

>>happyt+S1
In my perspective, it's less about the presentation, and more about the motivations involved.

If the EFF is motivated to reach out to the original DMCA recipient, then they could definitely present this avenue. That leads us to the next question, is the original DMCA recipient interested in pursuing a (now funded) defense? If not, are they interested in handing it off to someone else? Who? Would that person be an effective defendant?

Really, what we are doing here is speculating on one person's level of disinterest in pursuing the legal defense of their work.

>>andix+42
Wouldn't Mazda then go after both parties?

>>evan_+04
The tool Mazda is using is DMCA. That applies explicitly to whomever is hosting the content. More specifically, it applies to whomever Mazda sends the DMCA notice to.

>>andix+42
Transfer of ownership isn't even required, since it was open source code hosted on github. All someone needs to do is re-host the files, and wait for the DMCA notice to push back on it.

>>evan_+04
Usually you can't go after people for creating content, even if it's a copyright violation. They also can't "uncreate" it, they can't delete the concepts from their brain. You can only stop them from publishing/selling it.

In this case the code was on GitHub before, so they wouldn't even need to give the code to the new target entity, this entity could just copy it from an undisclosed person who has a copy.

>>oh_sig+i7
True. It should also be possible to maintain it outside of the US, where the DMCA doesn't apply. In some European countries Mazda probably wouldn't have a lot of options to take it down.

>>thomas+V3
What about another person willing to continue with a fork?

What about a DAO specifically built for that purpose exclusively?

Just looking how to fuck back those lawyers

>>tough+0j
I would love to see that happen. I also, unfortunately, doubt it will.

>>thomas+(OP)
They could reach out to him and offer to pay his legal expenses. They could even offer the services of lawyers they are familiar with. IIRC they have done that in similar cases in the past.

>>thomas+As
Seems it would require to fork the whole home assistant repo https://github.com/home-assistant/core/pull/101849#issuecomm...