Tell HN: GitHub refuses to remove cracked copies of my software after a month

Hacker News Discussion ↗

A solo developer behind a popular web-based photo editor says GitHub has left up repositories hosting ad-stripped clones of his client-side JavaScript code despite DMCA complaints. Commenters debate what legal protections realistically exist for browser-delivered software, how to file effective takedown notices, and whether trademarks or server-side architectures offer better safeguards. Many argue that in an era of easy copying and AI-assisted reimplementation, ad-supported client-only apps are especially vulnerable, pushing developers toward new business models rather than relying on copyright alone.

Legal and DMCA Issues

  • Many argue this is straightforward copyright infringement: verbatim JS copied, ads removed, redistributed.
  • Several point out that GitHub’s reply cited anti‑circumvention law (17 U.S.C. § 1201), which may be the wrong DMCA basis; a standard § 512(c) copyright takedown would likely be stronger.
  • One detailed comment says obfuscated JS can fall under anti‑circumvention, but another notes § 1201 is harder to apply than a plain copyright claim.
  • An IP lawyer explains realistic options: pay a specialist firm to play “whack‑a‑mole” or accept ongoing losses; individual self‑enforcement is usually frustrating and low‑leverage.

GitHub’s Handling

  • Multiple people criticize GitHub for taking a month and then declining to act, arguing hosts should remove content first and let disputes play out via counter‑notices.
  • A GitHub employee appears, links to the public DMCA repo, and asks for ticket numbers, suggesting some internal follow‑up is possible but opaque.
  • Others note platforms are overwhelmed, use low‑touch review, and are wary of DMCA abuse.

Business Model, Ads, and Client‑Side Code

  • Many say building a proprietary business on shipped JS is structurally fragile: once code runs in the browser, it’s effectively public.
  • Some argue the only enduring moats are server‑side logic, subscriptions, enterprise sales, or support/services.
  • Ads draw heavy criticism: intrusive layout, flashing behavior, and tracking make users eager to strip them or use ad blockers.
  • A few suggest alternative monetization: better-integrated, value‑adding promotions, sponsorships, subscriptions, or patronage models.

Ethics of Copying and IP

  • Split views: some insist “copying isn’t stealing” and see JS reuse as normal on the web; others emphasize significant labor invested and call this clear theft.
  • There’s debate over user rights to modify code running on their own machines (e.g., removing ads) versus redistributing modified proprietary builds.
  • A subset questions the ethics of cloning a major commercial photo editor while objecting to clones of this web editor, calling it inconsistent.

AI and the Future of Software IP

  • Several comments say LLMs can already reimplement complex algorithms and full apps, making code secrecy an ever‑weaker defense.
  • Some foresee feature‑perfect LLM reproductions being difficult to attack under current law, pushing toward political or legal reform.
  • Others respond that AI‑generated code may not be copyrightable, or that exact matches could still be infringing; legal status remains contested and “unclear.”

Technical and Strategic Suggestions

  • Proposed measures include:
    • Moving critical logic to server‑side or WebAssembly (though others note WASM can be decompiled too).
    • Adding domain checks or soft anti‑piracy friction, though many think this only marginally slows attackers.
    • Registering trademarks to stop confusing “Photopea‑branded” forks, while acknowledging this doesn’t protect the code.

Community Sentiment

  • Many express strong support and long‑term use of the editor, some disable ad blockers or pay specifically to help.
  • Others are blunt that piracy is inevitable at scale and advise focusing on product quality, branding, and differentiated services rather than trying to fully stop copies.