Thanks for pointing out the mention of representation. However the letter still lacked two required elements for it to be an effective formal counter notice:
- §512(g)(3)(C): A 'statement under penalty of perjury' that the material was removed by mistake.
- §512(g)(3)(D): A statement 'consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located', and to 'accept service of process from the person who provided notification'.
These are also noted as requirements in GitHub's counter notice policy [1] numbers 4 and 5.
I think it's also telling that GitHub never referred to this letter anywhere as a 'counter notice', only mentioning it as 'new information' they received about the project.
- §512(g)(3)(C): A 'statement under penalty of perjury' that the material was removed by mistake.
- §512(g)(3)(D): A statement 'consent[ing] to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which the address is located', and to 'accept service of process from the person who provided notification'.
These are also noted as requirements in GitHub's counter notice policy [1] numbers 4 and 5.
I think it's also telling that GitHub never referred to this letter anywhere as a 'counter notice', only mentioning it as 'new information' they received about the project.
[1] https://docs.github.com/en/free-pro-team@latest/github/site-...