Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 173 posts

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#101

Post by 29083011397778 »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #30
judge2020 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Section 1201 also makes it illegal to circumvent DRM measures or manufacture/import/provide tools that do. > (2)No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that (A)is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work prote…

You're allowed to circumvent if you own a license to the protected work. So, implementing or even cracking a DRM scheme is not enough to take it down.

In Canada, sure. Unfortunately for this case, Canadian laws don't apply worldwide.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#102

Post by toyg »

not2b wrote: post #18
Rebelgecko wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. From the additional context in the link, it sounds like Readium might believe that this implementation is infringing on their proprietary ebook format code. I wonder if the taken down repo was a clean room implementation? If not they might have a case, if it looks similar

Doesn't matter if it is clean room or not. In the US, it isn't legal to share anti-DRM technology. Perhaps you could get some court to decide that this law violates the 1st Amendment, but that would be an uphill climb. People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site.

> People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site.

This is the right answer.

On this, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody in Russia/China/Iran/NK/$OtherCountryThatDoesntCareForRelationsWithUSA has built a "GitHub for shady programs" yet - or if they have, it has not gone mainstream yet, I admit to not being up-to-date with "the scene". It's fairly ridiculous that you'd publish hacking tools on a Microsoft-owned site based in the US, it's like storing lock-picking hardware in a police station.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#103

Post by sam0x17 »

cft wrote: post #69
stefan_ wrote: post #13

Looking at the python file they are complaining about, it simply implements the "encryption profile" that is mentioned. There is no circumvention; it still requires the user password. It is also clearly a novel implementation, so there is no copyright violation here. Their "algorithm" or whatever is obviously not protected under DMCA. So this is totally bogus, again. Bonus points for the DMCA notice obviously not bei…

There has to be a meaningful liability for sending defective DMCA notices. But there won't be, wrong times.

When the boomers die out, the zoomers are going to obliterate DMCA. Their only exposure to it has been "thing that pisses off fav content creators"

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#105

Post by Youden »

judge2020 wrote: post #15
perihelions wrote: post #7

> "The following git repository contain circumvention technology that enables users to illegally access ebooks protected by copyright:" Related: GitHub's statement from the last time they removed a prominent repository to a "circumvention technology" DMCA claim: https://github.blog/2020-11-16-standing-up-for-developers-yo... ( "Standing up for developers: youtube-dl is back" ) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=251…

Section 1201 also makes it illegal to circumvent DRM measures or manufacture/import/provide tools that do. > (2)No person shall manufacture, import, offer to the public, provide, or otherwise traffic in any technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof, that (A)is primarily designed or produced for the purpose of circumventing a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work prote…

There are a number of exceptions, determined by the Copyright Office of the Library of Congress: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/10/28/2021-23...

Among them are exceptions for assistive technologies and research.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#106

Post by jeroenhd »

toyg wrote: post #102
not2b wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter if it is clean room or not. In the US, it isn't legal to share anti-DRM technology. Perhaps you could get some court to decide that this law violates the 1st Amendment, but that would be an uphill climb. People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site.

> People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site. This is the right answer. On this, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody in Russia/China/Iran/NK/$OtherCountryThatDoesntCareForRelationsWithUSA has built a "GitHub for shady programs" yet - or if they have, it has not gone mainstream yet, I admit to not being up-to-date with "the scene". It's fairly ridiculous that you'd publish hacking tools on a Microsoft-owned si…

There are plenty of foreign hosts, the problem is that nobody knows about them. Gitee is a pretty big Chinese Github alternative, for example. Parts of the Russian software scene seems to prefer forums to dump software and source code.

You won't find these repositories looking for them, because they're often in their native language. Many forum posts are also locked behind registration. I've used Google Translate a bunch of times to get Russian software working, but only after someone linked it to me.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#107

Post by stordoff »

reaperducer wrote: post #21
kstrauser wrote: post #6

I don’t buy content I can’t format shift. It’s not that I share it in ways that are against the law, but that if I buy a book, I might want to read it on any number of devices I personally own. If I can’t do that, I’m not buying it. Period. Also, don’t bother replying to me with any “but you’re licensing it…” nonsense. No. Look up an ebook on Amazon and you’ll see a “Buy” button next to it, with no mention of a licen…

Look up an ebook on Amazon and you’ll see a “Buy” button next to it Just went to Amazon and tried. It says "Deliver to..." with a list of devices. No "buy" button.

Amazon UK: "Buy now"

Amazon US: "Buy now with 1-Click®"

Amazon DE set to English: "Buy now with 1-Click®" (German: "Jetzt kaufen mit 1-Click®")

Amazon FR: "Acheter en 1-Click®" [Buy with 1-Click] (there is no English option that I can see)

Amazon JP set in English: "Submit Order" (Japanese: "注文を確定する")

It's not universal, but many of the sites use "Buy Now". The "Deliver to:" box is below this, and sets which device the purchase is sent to.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#108

Post by jeroenhd »

cletus wrote: post #40

> I have taken fair use into consideration. I'm constantly amazed at how many people don't understand what "fair use" actually means. Many seem to think it means "I should be able to do this" or even "I'm only using part of a copyrighted work". This issue has come up recently on Twitch with restreaming of TV shows, movies, anime and, more generally, with Youtube and other content. Fair use [1] is a specific legal doc…

Fair use is such a meme at this point often perpetrated by content creators who want to infringe on copyright (because they disagree with many parts of copyright law) so they claim whatever they're doing is just "fair use".

The authors of this library can't possibly defend themselves by claiming fair use and they damn well know it. The real question is whether the tool really does break encryption or if the tool is just an implementation of the algorithm that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions. Theoretically, a white-room reverse engineered implementation could be written without signing any contract and the terms and conditions would only serve to cut off their access after violation, but you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of that. I don't favour their chances in a lawsuit, but as they don't publish any keys, it's clear that they don't really break anything.

There could still be a violation going on if they hold one of those silly American software patents, but that would be solvable by only distributing the tools in countries where these patents can't be enforced. That also wouldn't be covered by a DMCA takedown of course, they'd need to start an actual lawsuit for that.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#109

Post by hvdijk »

mikevm wrote: post #89

What's the difference between this and Apprentice Alf's DeDRM tools repo which is still up?

Probably these bits:

> The user noDRM is actively promoting the activity of cracking both library loans and one-off purchases:

> https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2#issuecomment-9...

> This departs from the policy of the user [private], from which noDRM has forked the repository DeDRM_tools. The user [private] does not provide circumvention material for the LCP solution, therefore it is not part of our request for takedown.

Re: noDRM's GitHub repo DeDRM_tools is disabled due to Readium's DMCA notice

#110

Post by alanhaha »

sanxiyn wrote: post #104

If it is a DMCA problem, shouldn't we mirror this to Gitee, a Chinese GitHub clone? China seems to be more free than USA in this respect.

I would definitely suggest you not doing this.

Your code can be hidden without any notification, just showing "该文件疑似存在违规内容，无法显示" (The file is suspected to contain illegal content and cannot be displayed). You even don't know which part has the issue and how to modify.

Post reply on HN