Re: DMCA takedown notice

From: mikeeusa
Date: Mon Feb 11 2019 - 18:10:28 EST

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:

(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.

(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.


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

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

I now have no choice but to issue a DMCA take-down request, to you,

(electronic signature)
Jan 29, 2019

(Addendum: "John Doe" then uploaded the modified work to

Contact information:
email: mikeeusa@xxxxxxxxxx

infringing content:
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
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:
2) Yes this is "opensource" code.
3) No that does not matter:
The GPL(any version), being a bare license, is revocable
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.