31–40 of 173 posts
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…
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"
> What files should be taken down? Please provide URLs for each file, or if the entire repository, the repository’s URL. ... https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools
> the content of the repo was illegally obtained. The repo and its forks must be shut down entirely.
> I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law.
> I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
In addition, the larger context of a DMCA Takedown Request is to assert expedient takedown of a copy of work that you have copyright ownership over. Adding a bunch of backpedaling filler to a DMCA Takedown Request does not alter its basic purpose.
edit: Sheesh it looks like Microsoft is actually encouraging claimants to write these fraudulent DMCA notices regarding circumvention technology [0]. So this is basically another extralegal "Content ID" process, and Microsoft being overzealous with takedowns makes them a terrible option for hosting your stuff. I'd love to see the law produce some justice here for once, but the real answer to these corporate-bought one-sided laws is IPFS and the like.
[0] https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...
Quite an extreme stance I know, but then Ive never had a problem getting enough drm free content to fill my boots to the end of time.
> 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…
> 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 circumve…
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.
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 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 circumve…
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 .
https://workupload.com/file/DzgMhFtcxdj
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 doctrine specific to the United States copyright system. Other countries have different legal standards (eg UK's fair dealing [2]). Fair use is a four part legal test and all four factors have to apply for it to fall under the legislation and precedents of US copyright law.
None of this is a commentary of the ethics of defeating DRM. From a purely legal point of view, defeating DRM puts you in violation of copyright law and all the case law (eg AACS decryption [3]) puts such efforts well outside "fair use".
Now I think the copyright situation is ridiculous, not least of which because of a certain unnamed rodent that seems to completely dictate US copyright law (eg wait for another copyright extension beyond death plus 70 years before 2025).
Personally I think copyright should be much shorter (eg 20 years total) with possible extensions that you have to pay an ever-increasing amount for.
But to anyone who wants to release tools on defeating DRM, just know you do so at your own (legal) peril and fair use doesn't apply and won't save you.
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing
[3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...