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

131–140 of 173 posts

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

#131

Post by lobocinza »

toyg wrote: post #100
lobocinza wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This might impact on availability of new titles on Libgen.

I doubt it. This is DeCSS all over again; means will be found. Already anyone with an immediate need has downloaded the master snapshot, and can use that until an alternative distribution channel is set up. Pirate Bay is still up, and the MPAA has legal guns much bigger than anybody involved with ebooks. It's just a matter of time before noDRM comes back.

Hope so. And hope that this bring attention to the issue.

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

#132

Post by Mindwipe »

wtallis wrote: post #97
salawat wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would argue that the failure in the presence of an alternate means to facilitate decryption is a negater of the whole "effectively" clause. That's okay though. Civil disobedience is the best way to go I'm afraid.

At first glance, the "effectively" does seem rather silly, especially when applied to weak DRM that's more or less trivially cracked. But the "ordinary course of its operation" is what gives it force, by protecting DRM from being disqualified as ineffective when subjected to conditions beyond ordinary operation. It's not a question of whether the DRM is robust against attack, but whether it normally presents any real…

"Effectively" in legal terms means "to have an effect" (as in any effect at all), not that it has to be "effective" as in "good at it's job."

The plain English meaning of the word isn't really useful here.

All "effectively" in laws such as this (and the European equivalents) means that there has to actually be some mechanism of protection, i.e. you can't just have a file full of junk binary in the directory called "DRM" that doesn't do anything and claim circumvention by deleting it. But there is clearly an effect here.

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

#133

Post by diogenesjunior »

akersten wrote: post #4

> I have taken fair use into consideration. This is always a fucking lie, and I wish we (as a community) would band together to make it more painful for giant companies to just spam DMCA takedowns as part of their DRM strategy. Ignoring the entire issue with the fact that there probably wasn't any copyrighted material in the repo to begin with and that code is speech, and speech is protected in the US - in other word…

>code is speech, and speech is protected in the US

is it really? i've never thought of it like that.

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

#134

Post by Mindwipe »

judge2020 wrote: post #52
stefan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Implementing a DRM scheme is not circumventing it. No circumvention here, you still need the password.

Didn’t realize that, but I am still interested in whether or not a ‘DMCA notice’ can be used for the entire statute or just in removing duplicate copies of infringing content.

There are various notices with different rules, and it's somewhat dumbing it down to refer to a singular "DMCA notice", which generally here is used to refer to a copyright takedown request but has never actually really mean that.

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

#135

Post by Mindwipe »

stjohnswarts wrote: post #86
withinrafael wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the context of DRM protected content, no it is not something you're allowed to do. (Frustrating, yes.)

depends on what country you live in. Not everyone lives in the USA

> depends on what country you live in. Not everyone lives in the USA

As anti-DRM circumvention laws are a requirement of membership of the WTO, there are very few functioning countries that do not have them. The US law is not exceptional, nor even particularly stringent in this area.

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

#136

Post by traverseda »

analognoise wrote: post #121
darknavi wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here I am browsing all of this cool content via the WayBackMachibe. What a good repository of goodies!

How are you going from the takedown notice to the original repo, to figure out what to ask the WayBack machine?

Just read the pull requests, it will include links

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

#137

Post by Mindwipe »

not2b wrote: post #37
kmeisthax wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "non-US" you probably mean "non-WTO". WIPO/TRIPS was specifically used to policy-launder DMCA 1201 into US law despite the objections of the tech community in the US . EU law has very similar provisions and I'm told "copypaste 1201 language into your local law" is a common ask during USTR negotiations.

I'm not competent to advise people on which countries are "safe" for this purpose, perhaps others know.

To all intents and purposes there aren't any that are functioning countries. Iran maybe, best of luck getting your code hosted there in an widely accessible way (IIRC Iran had membership until 2016 and technically does have a prohibition as a result but doesn't enforce it really).

There are a few very small island nations, North Korea, and Monaco/San Marino, though I think Monaco has an anti-circumvention provision anyway.

Israel's implementation is full of holes but they still have one, technically.

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

#138

Post by traverseda »

loeg wrote: post #44
femto113 wrote: post #26

Think I have to side with Readium on this one, since the source code contains the actual bytes of the master key: def secret_transform_profile10(input_hash): ... # This 64-byte master key is basically all that distinguishes # the open source "open for everyone" version from the so-called # "open source" closed-source-version that's actually being used # by book distributors. ... masterkey = "b3a0..." If it read that…

The full number seems to be b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40f .

You mean the number between b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40e and b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d410 ?

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

#139

Post by julielit »

Why do we use DeDRM tools or equivalent? to be able to move a file from one ereader to another, from another brand; to feel that we "own" ebooks we have "bought"; to be sure that we keep ebooks in case the booksellers goes off-market; to be able to give and ebook we bought to a few friends.

What does kindle and other proprietary DRMs offer? none of it.

What do companies adopting Readium LCP offer? all of the above.

The original https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools is still open, everybody can use it, Amazon, Adobe, B&N, Kobo don't bother, so it can be used, updated without bits of Readium LCP. LCP which is moving in the right direction IMO: being able to give an ebook to a friend by simply giving the password is great.

Plus, why do some people want to keep and share with the world ebooks they had for free from a public library: they totally crush the only solution which makes litterature available to everyone: if this spreads, libraries will not be able to get ebooks from major publishers anymore. Is it what they really want?

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

#140

Post by literallyaduck »

Stop thinking of github as source control. It is source out of your control.

Decentralized source code is required.

If another entity can take your repo it isn't your repo.

If another entity can ninja commit to your repo with a bot it isn't your repo.

If your code can be taken down by a corporation or government, it isn't your repo.

Post reply on HN