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

111–120 of 173 posts

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

#111

Post by tjoff »

toyg wrote: post #98
tjoff wrote: post #90

I almost always miss context in these cases. What did noDRM do? Or perhaps, from what was DRM removed/filtered?

It provides ways to interact with ebooks protected with DRM systems. It's basically the only mainstream tool in that space; integrates easily with readers and collection managers, it's very battle-tested, has been around for a long time. noDRM published its code on GitHub. A DRM developer now claims it provides illegal tools, so GitHub disabled the repo.

Thanks, I've actually used it to great success but the name alone wasn't enough for me to make the connection.

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

#112

Post by intsunny »

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.

China is far more authoritarian and blunt than the United States government.

A famous example would be how clowwindy, the author of the ShadowSocks VPN, was "invited for a cup of tea by the Chinese police".[0]

[0] https://printempw.github.io/about-clowwindy-archive/

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

#113

Post by notafraudster »

ashtonkem wrote: post #76
DarkmSparks wrote: post #33

Personally I'm actually of the opinion that people should just forget about working around DRM preventing legal access to content and just forget about DRM encumbered content altogether. Having work arounds adds value to otherwise worthless file formats. Dont support it, dont recommend it. dont even talk about it other than to say "meh, DRM'd you couldnt pay me enough to use it". Quite an extreme stance I know, but t…

Generally I find that recommending individual, uncoordinated action as a solution to a system issue to be generally unsuccessful. Something like this either needs a coordinated response like a boycott, or a political solution.

It depends on the metric for success: if the metric for success is that it ends the practice you oppose, then yes clearly individual, uncoordinated action won't do that. if the metric for success is that it extricates you from having to compromise on your principles, then it's quite easy to achieve success.

e.g. Although I'd be happy for to go bankrupt or desist from making the world a better place, I'd also be plenty happy knowing I'm not giving them money to make the world a better place.

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

#114

Post by gnopgnip »

dcow wrote: post #36

I’d love to hear from the copyright owner (the repo owner). According to github they were contacted and offered legal support. Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice? I could see how it would be easy to think “welp I help people remove DRM for archival and interoperability purposes and I got a DMCA notice it’s over”. I wonder if the EFF would be interested in lending support.

> Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice?

Because they would lose their safe harbor protection under the DMCA, and could be sued directly by the rights holder. And because this work probably is in violation of the anti circumvention portion of the DMCA, so a lawsuit could be very expensive

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

#115

Post by GuB-42 »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #63
Aerroon wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 2. You can't tell anyone how to circumvent DRM, regardless of purpose. This is the sort of violation being alleged here. I'm curious: why would this be the case? This is a restriction of speech that doesn't contain copyrighted content enacted by a copyright law. This seems like charging someone, by using an anti-burglary law, because they taught someone else how to pick a lock .

Just to give you an idea of how dumb this law is, try this for a hypothetical. Alice uses DRM to protect her copyrighted work. Bob uses the exact same DRM to stop you from copying public domain works, for example. You publish some code to break Bob's DRM. Is that illegal? The law shouldn't enable Bob to do that. But if you can have tools to break Bob's DRM, the tools will break Alice's DRM because they're the same, a…

I don't think that a law preventing you from breaking Bob's DRM just because it protects public domain is ridiculous. Public domain just means that nobody owns the rights, it is not an obligation for anyone who owns a copy to make it available to everyone.

For example, I can own a copy of Moby Dick and do everything in my power to make sure that you don't get my copy, and if you break into my house to read it, I can sue you for that, and I don't think "but I wanted to read a public domain book" is going to be well received. What I can't do is prevent you from getting your own copy of Moby Dick from someone more willing to share it, and then share it yourself.

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

#118

Post by nomercy400 »

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…

Using money to extend copyright is a bad solution. The house of the mouse will simply pay the fee, because they can, while the author of the bestselling book of 2002 might nog have the income to cover the copyright extenion fee.

Irony will then dictate that the house of the mouse will make a movie out of the bestselling book of 2002, and not pay a dime to the original author.

The rest of your fair use argument is ok btw.

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

#119

Post by teekert »

My kindle keyboard died last week (which I used for an impressive 11 years). Copying over the books (using Calibre) to my new PocketBook touch HD3 I got a lot of errors and was reminded of the fact that I don't own most of my Amazon books.

I knew it was going to happen, but it's still soooo annoying. Hooray for De-DRM and usenet, I't probably faster to re-download then to get the De-DRM set up.

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

#120

Post by salamandersauce »

DarkmSparks wrote: post #33

Personally I'm actually of the opinion that people should just forget about working around DRM preventing legal access to content and just forget about DRM encumbered content altogether. Having work arounds adds value to otherwise worthless file formats. Dont support it, dont recommend it. dont even talk about it other than to say "meh, DRM'd you couldnt pay me enough to use it". Quite an extreme stance I know, but t…

It's a lot of content though. Basically every movie/TV show these days is DRM encumbered either in the streaming app, cable box, the download file or on the disc. Besides some indie stuff the only non-DRM video content I can think of is OTA TV which for me is a whopping 3 channels of not great stuff. Even movie theaters are technically DRM encumbered these days.
Post reply on HN