HackerReposA FIELD GUIDE TO OPEN SOURCE
ProSponsor the shelf♧ 0
← Back to top all-time
github
dmca
DIGITAL Command Language2011–2026
github / dmca

dmca

Repository with text of DMCA takedown notices as received. GitHub does not endorse or adopt any assertion contained in the following notices. Users identified in the notices are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Additional information about our DMCA policy can be found at

288Distinct people
328Mentions
2Explicit recommenders
6.4KGitHub stars
REPOSITORY AT A GLANCE

What to know before exploring

What it is

Repository with text of DMCA takedown notices as received. GitHub does not endorse or adopt any assertion contained in the following notices. Users identified in the notices are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Additional information about our DMCA policy can be found at

GitHub

Where it is used

No documented product use was verified in the last source check.

What people are saying

The forks aren't actually automatically taken down in most cases. The claimant must list every individual fork in the claim. Which I love, because it's kind of petty but still…

tjhorner used a recommendation phrase. 2 indexed comments match. This is a phrase match, not a verdict.

No classified warning is attached to this page. Read the discussions before treating silence as approval.

Also in these discussions

Mentioned in the same Hacker News threads. That is not proof they are substitutes.

This week on Hacker News

Nov 7–Nov 14 UTC · Direct repository links and separately labeled related project stories. Indexed through 11/14/2026, 7:56:55 PM UTC.

No direct repository links were found in the indexed HN discussions over the past seven days. Older discussions are available below.

Mentions over time

HN mentions by year328 dated mentions

Observed mentions: 2011-01-29 01:35:49 UTC to 2026-10-15 17:07:24 UTC.

0204060802011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 5 submissions, 4 comments20112012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 11 mentions; 5 submissions, 6 comments2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 23 mentions; 8 submissions, 15 comments2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 37 mentions; 16 submissions, 21 comments2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 18 mentions; 7 submissions, 11 comments2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 14 mentions; 4 submissions, 10 comments2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 9 mentions; 1 submissions, 8 comments2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 6 mentions; 4 submissions, 2 comments20182019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 7 mentions; 2 submissions, 5 comments2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 78 mentions; 11 submissions, 67 comments2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 25 mentions; 8 submissions, 17 comments2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 31 mentions; 3 submissions, 28 comments2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 19 mentions; 4 submissions, 15 comments2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 16 mentions; 5 submissions, 11 comments2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 10 mentions; 2 submissions, 8 comments2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC to 2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC (exclusive): 15 mentions; 5 submissions, 10 comments. Incomplete calendar period.2026*

* An incomplete calendar period is marked with an outlined bar. Its count is not directly comparable with a full period.

Counts come from the repository’s dated source evidence. Index cutoff: 2026-11-02 08:16:59 UTC.

View mention counts and date ranges
UTC ranges include their start and exclude their end. Select a period to filter the source evidence.
PeriodStart (UTC)End (exclusive, UTC)MentionsSubmissionsComments
20112011-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC954
20122012-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1156
20132013-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC23815
20142014-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC371621
20152015-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC18711
20162016-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC14410
20172017-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC918
20182018-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC642
20192019-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC725
20202020-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC781167
20212021-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC25817
20222022-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC31328
20232023-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC19415
20242024-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC16511
20252025-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC1028
2026 (partial)2026-01-01 00:00:00 UTC2027-01-01 00:00:00 UTC15510

From the project README

An excerpt from the repository, fetched Nov 12, 2026.

Read the project’s introduction
What is this? Inspired by Lumen (formerly Chilling Effects) and Google, this repo contains the text of DMCA takedown notices and counter-notices we've received here at GitHub. We publish them as they are received, redacting only private information, as well as URLs reported but that we determined were not actionable under the DMCA. Why is this? In short, we believe that transparency on a specific and ongoing level is essential to good governance. Chilling Effects/Lumen explained it well in 2014 (archive.org mirror; not present on their current site): "We are excited about the new opportunities the Internet offers individuals to express their views . . . but concerned that not everyone feels the same way. Study to date suggests that cease and desist letters often silence Internet users, whether or not their claims have legal merit." (About, ChillingEffects.org, Sept. 2014, licensed under CC-BY-3.0). Similarly, we post takedown notices here to document their potential to "chill" speech. What does it mean if there's a notice posted here? It only means that we received the notice on the indicated date. It does not mean that the content was unlawful or wrong. It does not mean that the user identified in the notice has done anything wrong. We don't make or imply any judgment about the merit of the claims they make. We post these notices and requests only for informational purposes. For more details, see our DMCA policy. Anatomy of a takedown notice In the spirit of transparency, we post each takedown notice that we process without making any changes to the text, except for redacting private information and URLs that were not actionable, and adding a few annotations to help you better understand how we processed the notice. Here are the annotations you might see and what they mean. We gave repository owners a chance to make changes before we processed the notice. When you see this at the top of a notice (starting in March 2021) Before disabling any content in relation to this takedown notice, GitHub contacted the owners of some or all of the affected repositories to give them an opportunity to make changes that could have prevented the need to disable the content provided information on how to submit a DMCA Counter Notice. it means that either the notice did not allege that the entire contents of a repository infringe, or the copyright holder identified other changes that could be made to the content to resolve the alleged infringement. As we note in our DMCA Takedown Policy, in those cases, because GitHub cannot disable access to specific files within a repository, we will contact the user who created the repository and give them approximately 1 business day to delete or modify the content specified in the notice. If the repository owner makes the necessary changes, then GitHub will not disable the content. In some cases, that means the repositories are currently available despite being listed in the notice. In other cases, a repository might be unavailable because the repository owner decided to delete it. Note, none of this is new policy - what's new as of March 2021 is that we are now adding this annotation in any posted notice we process this way. We only processed the takedown notice with respect to some of the reported URLs. [invalid] or [private] In many cases a notice alleges copyright infringement in multiple repositories or files. When we determine that only some of the repositories or files are infringing, including where reported content was not available at the time we reviewed the notice, we replace the other URLs with [invalid]. Before March 2021, we had replaced those URLs with [private], which we continue to use to note redaction of private information. The notice reported a repository that's being actively forked. As of March 2021, you may see this note where a takedown notice reports an allegedly infringing repository that was being actively forked at the time it was reported [Note: Because the parent repository was actively being forked when this DMCA takedown notice was received, and the submitter had identified all known forks at the time they submitted the takedown notice, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire fork network of [x] forks.] As we explain in our DMCA Takedown Policy, in those rare cases when a notice alleges copyright infringement in a full repository that is actively being forked, we would process a valid claim against all forks in that network at the time we process the notice, if the notice identified all existing forks of that repository as allegedly infringing. We would do this given the likelihood that all newly created forks would contain the same content as those existing at the time the notice was submitted. The notice reported a repository with more than 100 forks. As of March 2021, if you see this statement in a notice Based on the representative number of forks I have reviewed, I believe that all or most of the forks are infringing to the same extent as the parent repository. it means the reported network that contains the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories and thus would have been difficult to review in its entirety. As a result, we disabled the entire network because the submitter reviewed a representative sample of the forks in the network such that they were fairly certain the entirety of the network was infringing and included that sworn statement as part of their takedown notice. In these cases, we note in the takedown notice the total number of forks we disabled at the time of processing. Contributing If you are looking to file or dispute a takedown notice by posting to this repository, please STOP 🛑 because we do not accept Pull Requests or other contributions to this repository. Read on to learn about the available paths forward. If you would just like to comment on a commit to discuss it, that's fine, but again please note that GitHub does not actively monito
Read the full README on GitHub

What Hacker News says

15 sources
Is there a ticket code or other contact you've been in touch with? As for DMCA filings, we publish all of them here: https://github.com/github/dmca I see two from Photopea, one from 2022 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/d97814f268e07e62aabe8b5c...) and one from 2024 (https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/d97814f268e07e62aabe8b5c...) - could you point to the recent filing? I work at GH, but am not involved in DMCA filings, and can in no way answer or judge this case, but potentially follow up internally.
In Tell HN: GitHub refuses to remove cracked copies of my software after a month
> Reverse engineering would have to be illegal if what you say is true, because the source code you obtained from a copyrighted work is "tainted". Yes. It often is. Hence why we have "clean room" practices to avoid the taint. There's a reason "legality" is one of the headlines on the reverse engineering wiki page. The headliner legal case in the US being Sega v. Accolade, which said that reverse-engineering to discover functions is fine if no documentation exists, but almost all other options are not fair use. As for Nintendo, I guess you missed that they throw gigantic DCMAs at GitHub all the time? [1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2025/02/2025-02-2...
In Resident Evil 4 (GameCube) – complete byte-identical decompilation to C/C++
Seems you're right. They have done this in the past though, so wouldn't exactly be a surprise. Here is what the "free speech" platform have censored previously on GitHub: > X Corp. employs various technical protection measures to control access to its copyrighted works, including those at issue here (API schemas and platform content): e.g., official X Corp. API key/OAuth authentication, rate-limiting mechanisms, proprietary behavioral pattern detection, TLS fingerprint validation, and x-clienttransaction-id checks. The repository referenced above appears specifically designed to circumvent these measures using browser cookies, curl_cffi TLS impersonation, fake headers, request jitter, and reverse-engineered GraphQL queries. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/b2c88bad7dd771dc7d1842ff...
In XCancel service is suspended until further notice
AI "steals" your code, but AI company says "that's a fair use." AI generates application using a "predict the next word" algorithm built with the stolen/not stolen works. Nothing creative there, just statistics. That application leaks, and now the company that stole/not stole the code originally claims they own the algorithmic output. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3... One problem, you don't own that output. Either the original authors own it or nobody owns it because it's not creative... https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB10922 Those are the legal options. You stole it or you don't own it. There is no steal and then you own. That's the core problem. AI companies have demonstrated that they will directly steal the work and they will use their money and influence to claim ownership of it.
In AI is just unauthorised plagiarism at a bigger scale
My GitHub fork of anthropics/claude-code just got taken down with a DMCA notice lol It did not have a copy of the leaked code... Anthropic thinking 1) they can unring this bell, and 2) removing forks from people who have contributed (well, what little you can contribute to their repo), is ridiculous. --- DMCA: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3... GitHub's note at the top says: "Note: Because the reported network that contained the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories, and the submitter alleged that all or most of the forks were infringing to the same extent as the parent repository, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire network of 8.1K repositories, inclusive of the parent repository."
In The Claude Code Source Leak: fake tools, frustration regexes, undercover mode
I got a DMCA notice for my fork (https://github.com/cg505/claude-code) which I have not touched since May. Obviously, it didn't include the leaked source code. The DMCA notice published by GitHub includes this: > Note: Because the reported network that contained the allegedly infringing content was larger than one hundred (100) repositories, and the submitter alleged that all or most of the forks were infringing to the same extent as the parent repository, GitHub processed the takedown notice against the entire network of 8.1K repositories, inclusive of the parent repository. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2026/03/2026-03-3...
In GitHub has DMCA'd nearly all forks of the official Claude-code repo

MAKE YOURSELF AT HOME

A few shortcuts

/
Search the collection
?
Open this guide
Esc
Close dialogs and navigation

Your saved repositories and interests stay in this browser.