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

71–80 of 173 posts

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

#71

Post by schoen »

stefan_ wrote: post #13

Looking at the python file they are complaining about, it simply implements the "encryption profile" that is mentioned. There is no circumvention; it still requires the user password. It is also clearly a novel implementation, so there is no copyright violation here. Their "algorithm" or whatever is obviously not protected under DMCA. So this is totally bogus, again. Bonus points for the DMCA notice obviously not bei…

Unfortunately, there are cases in which courts said approximately that implementing an algorithm (especially an algorithm that is a secret¹) without permission can be a violation of §1201. Recall

  (a)(3)(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner; and
  (B) a technological measure “effectively controls access to a work” if the measure, in the ordinary course of its operation, requires the application of information, or a process or a treatment, with the authority of the copyright owner, to gain access to the work.
¹ yes, I know that it's weird to regard the algorithm as a secret when implementations are given out to the user

[edited in response to correction by wtallis]

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

#72

Post by ashtonkem »

na85 wrote: post #47
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 .

>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).

To be fair, congress mostly doesn’t give a shit what happens either.

I’m genuinely curious if this aspect of the law would (or has) stand up to scrutiny, given that congress regularly writes unconstitutional laws, and the Supreme Court really really really hates prior restraint.

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

#73

Post by oauea »

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 .

Explanation what it's used for: https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/principles/

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

#74

Post by wtallis »

schoen wrote: post #71
stefan_ wrote: post #13

Looking at the python file they are complaining about, it simply implements the "encryption profile" that is mentioned. There is no circumvention; it still requires the user password. It is also clearly a novel implementation, so there is no copyright violation here. Their "algorithm" or whatever is obviously not protected under DMCA. So this is totally bogus, again. Bonus points for the DMCA notice obviously not bei…

Unfortunately, there are cases in which courts said approximately that implementing an algorithm (especially an algorithm that is a secret¹) without permission can be a violation of §1201. Recall (a)(3)(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authorit…

I'd be surprised if the courts actually held that implementing an algorithm was an act of circumvention. I expect they'd rather hold that to be in violation of a different paragraph:

> (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 protected under this title;

An implementation of the algorithm without the necessary key would still be a "component, or part thereof".

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

#75

Post by ashtonkem »

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

This is mostly true. But there are some special exemptions.

The real gotcha is that the courts have generally taken a dim view towards using the courts themselves to restrict someone’s speech. The Supreme Court basically doesn’t want (or maybe didn’t want given their recent changes) congress to launder free speech violations to civil lawsuits enforced by the courts. That’s kind of a neat trick that you’d generally want to suppress, which if I understand is why there are first amendment issues around defamation lawsuits, despite being purely between individuals.

How does this work with the DMCA? I dunno. But to my (non lawyer) eyes it does seem kinda like it effectively criminalizes speech, and I wonder if it should stand up to judicial scrutiny.

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

#76

Post by ashtonkem »

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.

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

#77

Post by schoen »

wtallis wrote: post #74
schoen wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, there are cases in which courts said approximately that implementing an algorithm (especially an algorithm that is a secret¹) without permission can be a violation of §1201. Recall (a)(3)(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authorit…

I'd be surprised if the courts actually held that implementing an algorithm was an act of circumvention. I expect they'd rather hold that to be in violation of a different paragraph: > (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 circu…

Yes, thanks for the correction.

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

#78

Post by Buttons840 »

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…

You remind me of a relative I've lost nearly all connection with because he now has a hard line stance on DRM. We used to watch movies and enjoy talking about them, but he wont watch anything that requires streaming. And worse, we used to enjoy playing the same video games and talking about them, but he wont use Steam, and he wont purchase video game consoles anymore.

I share his concerns, but when I weight my choices, I sometimes choose the DRM'ed content. The DRM may make my purchase a "rental", but it's often still an experience I choose to have, despite the cons. I have walked away from my fair share of DRM'ed content on principle, but I don't have such a hard-line stance.

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

#79

Post by perihelions »

schoen wrote: post #71
stefan_ wrote: post #13

Looking at the python file they are complaining about, it simply implements the "encryption profile" that is mentioned. There is no circumvention; it still requires the user password. It is also clearly a novel implementation, so there is no copyright violation here. Their "algorithm" or whatever is obviously not protected under DMCA. So this is totally bogus, again. Bonus points for the DMCA notice obviously not bei…

Unfortunately, there are cases in which courts said approximately that implementing an algorithm (especially an algorithm that is a secret¹) without permission can be a violation of §1201. Recall (a)(3)(A) to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authorit…

What happens if you print out the source code and publish it as a book? Can the courts prohibit a book?

Phil Zimmermann asked this question in the context of export controls on "cryptography technology", i.e. the PGP software. MIT Press published the source code in 1995. But the US dropped its objections and this wasn't specifically tested in court (AFAIK, though similar questions were).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pretty_Good_Privacy#Criminal_i...

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

#80

Post by cyphar »

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 .

In case you wanted the number in flag form (a-la AACS): https://imgur.com/a/EX8RWXM.
Post reply on HN