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

41–50 of 173 posts

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

#41

Post by thakoppno »

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…

I believe “place-shifting” too if there’s no profit motive. At least that’s what I recall regarding the locast court decisions.

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

#42

Post by im3w1l »

not2b wrote: post #22
ryukafalz wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think there are two separate issues here. Is the code illegal? Yes* Is the takedown notice correct and truthful? No*

*Ianal etc.

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

#43

Post by 2pEXgD0fZ5cF »

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.

> It says "Deliver to..."

It says that right below "*Buy* now with 1-Click ®"

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

#44

Post by loeg »

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 .

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

#45

Post by bitwize »

Good.

Like it or not, anticircumvention measures are black-letter law in much of the world. In the USA, producing or distributing software designed to circumvent DRM can subject you to civil and criminal penalties.

According to 17 U.S.C. section 512, it is not necessary for the material itself to be infringing in order for a DMCA notice to be valid. If "an activity using the material" is infringing, the material must be removed upon receipt of a takedown notice.

Therefore, it is likely that takedown notices are as legitimate for material that violates Section 1201 as they are for copyrighted material.

This is copyright law working as intended, nothing more.

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

#46

Post by perth »

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…

Reminds me of when the Google widevine key was leaked a bit ago on GitHub and they similarly nuked that repo.

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

#47

Post by na85 »

Aerroon wrote: post #38
kmeisthax wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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 .

>I'm curious: why would this be the case?

Because the DMCA, like most US law, is written by corporations without regard for the common folk.

The RIAA and MPAA literally don't give a shit what happens so long as they get to keep gouging the public with their antiquated business models.

They can't compete so they resort to litigation to protect their bottom line(s).

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

#48

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#49

Post by kristo »

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 varies greatly state to state as far as I understand it

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

#50

Post by michaelmrose »

lnxg33k1 wrote: post #14
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…

As Italian, I think you should take my words with mistrust, but as far as I understood recently about US is that the speech is protected between the citizen and the government, not between civil entities, as business/corps and citizen That said, I guess it was shortsighted from the founding father but I guess at the time people would be often oppressed by governments not by neighbors and friends and I think this is s…

> as far as I understood recently about US is that the speech is protected between the citizen and the government, not between civil entities, as business/corps and citizen

Free speech by anyone to anyone is protected from government restriction. It is the government that is forbidden from punishing speech not the government that must be party to the speech else free speech would have nearly zero meaning.

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

What is oft said is that the first amendment doesn't protect you from non governmental consequences for your speech. For example you can be fired for your speech but you may not be imprisoned nor silenced by the government.

When a private entity avails itself of remedies provided by the government to limit or punish your speech your constitutional rights are infringed because it is the government acting to limit your speech even if its on behalf of a claimant.

Post reply on HN