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

21–30 of 173 posts

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

#21

Post by reaperducer »

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.

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

#22

Post by not2b »

ryukafalz wrote: post #19
not2b wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately the DMCA also covers technology that works around DRM, not just copyright violation. Anyone wanting to share any anti-DRM software is advised to use a non-US site; GitHub probably doesn't have a choice about things like this once someone reports it. The notice didn't claim copyright violation. It claimed (accurately) that this code worked around their DRM.

Except it started with: > Yes, I am the copyright holder.

Read the rest. In context they are saying that the code allows people to circumvent the DRM and access their copyrighted works. So it's an anti-DRM claim not an ordinary copyright claim.

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

#23

Post by nosianu »

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.

I just went to amazon.de and looked at a book and I saw "Jetzt kaufen" which translates to "Buy now". Yes that was a Kindle edition. amazon.com won't show me a purchase option because it wants me to buys Kindle things on amazon.de, but below the bookw, pointing to other Kindle editions (I checked) it shoes "What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?", so there too it uses the word "buy".

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

#24

Post by kmeisthax »

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…

So, the thing about circumvention exceptions is that...

1. There is no general exception for format shifting. If there was, DMCA 1201 would have zero legal weight.

2. Even if there was, it would not materially impact the legal status of this DMCA 512 takedown request

This is because DMCA 1201 circumvention exceptions only apply to half of the law. Section 1201 renders two different acts illegal:

1. You can't circumvent DRM, unless for specific purposes.

2. You can't tell anyone how to circumvent DRM, regardless of purpose. This is the sort of violation being alleged here.

Depending on how you look at it, either Congress assumed a black market would exist for DRM circumvention technology anyway; or they assumed people who need lawful circumvention would in-house everything and destroy it when they no longer needed it. That's the sort of question a court might have to interpret if someone was a bit more careful than, say, publishing the DRM unlock straight onto GitHub. But that's not this case. In this case, the law does not facilitate any fair use argumentation whatsoever.

It's not a lie, the DMCA 1201 exception process is just hilariously toothless.

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

#25

Post by JonathonW »

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.

I see a "Buy now with 1-Click" button on content I haven't already purchased. There is a "deliver to" dropdown, but it just selects where the content goes after I click that "Buy now" button.

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

#26

Post by femto113 »

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 from an environment variable or a config file that wasn't included in the source I think this DMCA notice would have a lot harder time holding up.

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

#27

Post by seoaeu »

mindslight wrote: post #3

I would really love to see someone get prosecuted for fraudulent DMCA claims such as this one. The claimant here has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder of the code in the named repository. This is a straight up lie - in reality they hold no copyright over code in the repository, because the code in the repository has been independently created. The anti-circumvention portion of the DM…

> The claimant here has sworn, under penalty of perjury, that they are the copyright holder of the code in the named repository.

No they didn't:

> "We are the copyright owner of the official LCP encryption profile used by ebook distributors worldwide"

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

#28

Post by kmeisthax »

not2b wrote: post #16
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…

Unfortunately the DMCA also covers technology that works around DRM, not just copyright violation. Anyone wanting to share any anti-DRM software is advised to use a non-US site; GitHub probably doesn't have a choice about things like this once someone reports it. The notice didn't claim copyright violation. It claimed (accurately) that this code worked around their DRM.

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.

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

#29

Post by jethro_tell »

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.

huh, mine says 'buy now' with a separate drop down for deliver to, the options include 'your library' and 'download to computer'

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

#30

Post by R0b0t1 »

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…

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.
Post reply on HN