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

91–100 of 173 posts

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

#91

Post by anticensor »

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 .

> This seems like charging someone, by using an anti-burglary law, because they taught someone else how to pick a lock .

Hungary has such a law.

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

#93

Post by salawat »

wtallis wrote: post #54
stefan_ wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I think you need the password and authorization from the copyright owner. The law provides this definition: > 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. DeDRM tools are obviously not the ordinary cours…

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.

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

#94

Post by tsimionescu »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #35
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…

You're not allowed to circumvent for format shifting, but you are allowed to circumvent to access a work you have rights to. So these takedowns on GitHub should not be happening.

You are allowed to circumvent to access a work. No one is allowed to publish a method to do so (well, I believe the original copyright owner might be?).

So, most likely this GitHub takedown is perfectly legal.

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

#95

Post by KronisLV »

I can't help but to wonder how far you could reasonably go to avoid DMCA notices and such for projects like this, whilst still collaborating on it - basically to ensure that you're censorship resistant for any source code.

The youtube-dl fiasco from a while ago comes to mind in particular, in regards to DRM on books, i think that this comment on Reddit summarizes why it might be important:

> You know exactly why they don't treat it like a physical book. Because then they can rewrite the rules, you don't own it and they make more money.

(e.g. practices that feel like they should be illegal, but aren't, due to the state of education/healthcare industries in the US)

Some ideas for this thought experiment:

  GitHub - clearly not the best option, since they're obligated to follow the regional DMCA laws.
  GitLab/Gitea/Gogs/... - a self hosted service is probably better, even if takes more effort to run, but at that point the host itself would receive abuse complaints
  DMCA Ignored Hosting - apparently a thing, but who knows how resistant they are once the larger corporations would start throwing their weight around
  Tor/Onion Sites - probably not a good option, because currently the technologies are used by a number of shady individuals, and even without that factor, the user experience tends to generally be pretty poor (hard to onboard people, probably way slower)
In short, i'm not sure what actually can be done. I guess you just have to vote for people who view the state of the industry as a problem and see as nothing happens because the majority of the populace doesn't care (hopefully it would change, but don't rely on this alone).

Actually, my father recently read some standards online for the industry he is employed in - not only did he have to pay for viewing them, but he could also not save anything because of the DRM in place in the browser (the closest you can get is screenshots, but on text heavy documents that is pretty useless unless you use your own OCR, which many don't know how to do).

Now, maybe that's just a European perspective, but that felt pretty unfair. Especially considering the fact that these standards had information in them which could save lives. Why should you put things like that behind a paywall!?

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

#96

Post by R0b0t1 »

schoen wrote: post #65
R0b0t1 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're not allowed to circumvent for format shifting, but you are allowed to circumvent to access a work you have rights to. So these takedowns on GitHub should not be happening.

There's no exception to the tools prohibition based on purpose. One of many harsh features of §1201.

Nope, the law contradicts itself. In such a conflict it is typical to favor the consumer.

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

#97

Post by wtallis »

salawat wrote: post #93
wtallis wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you need the password and authorization from the copyright owner. The law provides this definition: > 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. DeDRM tools are obviously not the ordinary cours…

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 barrier to non-hackers.

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

#98

Post by toyg »

tjoff wrote: post #90

I almost always miss context in these cases. What did noDRM do? Or perhaps, from what was DRM removed/filtered?

It provides ways to interact with ebooks protected with DRM systems. It's basically the only mainstream tool in that space; integrates easily with readers and collection managers, it's very battle-tested, has been around for a long time.

noDRM published its code on GitHub. A DRM developer now claims it provides illegal tools, so GitHub disabled the repo.

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

#99

Post by wtallis »

R0b0t1 wrote: post #96
schoen wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no exception to the tools prohibition based on purpose. One of many harsh features of §1201.

Nope, the law contradicts itself. In such a conflict it is typical to favor the consumer.

Can you point out the contradicting bits?

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

#100

Post by toyg »

lobocinza wrote: post #59
tadfisher wrote: post #11

Damn. I rely on this software to read ebooks on my Remarkable tablet. I do this because I like giving at least a few pennies of royalty percentage to the author, and as far as I understand it, it's legal on my end to circumvent DRM for the sole purpose of interoperability for my legally-purchased content. Of course, if they really don't want my money, there's always libgen.

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.

Post reply on HN