**Are you the owner of the content that has been disabled, or authorized to act on the owner’s behalf?**

Yes, I am authorized to act on the content owner's behalf.

**Please describe the nature of your content ownership or authorization to act on the owner's behalf.**

I am an authorized agent of Pirate Chain.

**What files were taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL.**

https://github.com/PirateNetwork/pirate

**Do you want to make changes to your repository or do you want to dispute the notice?**

Dispute the notice.

**Is there anything else you think we should know about why you believe the material was removed as a result of a mistake?**

Dear DMCA Agents of GitHub, Inc.:

This counter notice is being submitted in relation to the following content that was disabled, with the location where it appeared as reference:

https://github.com/PirateNetwork/pirate/commit/a21bf4051094a8ca9c481efd32d706361e8003b5  
[private]  
[private]  
[private]  
[private]  
[private]

My understanding is that the developers of Pirate Chain wrote this code or adapted if from publicly available open source MIT licensed code and it was not misappropriated from Hush as stated in the claim by the party disputing (“disputer”).

First, z_getbalances was derived from other common RPC functions in the source code and was named to be internally consistent with the z_getbalance and z_gettotalbalance functions, which are functions common to both Pirate Chain and Hush. The function was written independently of the function used by Hush, takes different parameters and returns different data.

Secondly, the TLS code implemented was not protected under the GPLv3 license. It was published under the MIT license on 9/29/2020:  
[private]>

Hush did not change their license until 10/21/2020:  
[private]>

The executed code was taken from a pre-GPLv3 version that is available to the public, and at the time that I implemented or acquired that particular code, Horizen, to the best of my knowledge, was the owner of the code. Acquiring ownership rights to a particular code is simple – one would have to simply show that they wrote this particular code themselves, and thus, are the originators of the code. Horizen first started implementing this code on 5/7/2018, with the current version virtually identical to the Hush version published on 9/29/2020.

The code used by Pirate Chain (and under dispute here) was released under an open-source license that permits any user’s use. Here, the party disputing the use of this code has failed to show the origination of the code and that he/she wrote the code themselves, in order to justify having acquired the rights to this code before my use of the code. Furthermore, if they are not in fact the owner of this code, the party disputing has failed to show who is, in fact, the originator of this code. The links I have included above show that the code implemented was brought to Pirate Chain from an open, public source.

**I swear, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good-faith belief that the material was removed or disabled as a result of a mistake or misidentification of the material to be removed or disabled.**

**I consent to the jurisdiction of Federal District Court for the judicial district in which my address is located (if in the United States, otherwise the Northern District of California where GitHub is located), and I will accept service of process from the person who provided the DMCA notification or an agent of such person.**

**Please confirm that you have you have read our <a href="https://docs.github.com/articles/guide-to-submitting-a-dmca-counter-notice">Guide to Submitting a DMCA Counter Notice</a>.**

**So that the complaining party can get back to you, please provide both your telephone number and physical address.**

[private]  
[private]  
[private]

**Please type your full legal name below to sign this request.**

[private]
