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

1–10 of 173 posts

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

#3

Post by mindslight »

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 DMCA is a completely separate thing, and as far as I am aware running afoul of it does not give anyone the right to claim copyright over the code you wrote. The claimant's correct path to a remedy (if any) is to sue the authors of the "circumvention device" and prove the case in court, rather than fraudulently abusing the DMCA takedown process as a shortcut.

If Microsoft/Github wants to show us how enlightened they have become, they should sue this claimant for fraud and tortious interference. Standing up for one's customers against bogus legal action could even become a selling point of SaaS.

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

#4

Post by akersten »

> 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 words, taking the most charitable (for corporations) interpretation of the DMCA and assuming that neither of those holds true, a fair use provision still should hold!

Circumvention for purposes of transposing your media to a different platform (time-shifting, archival) are already explicitly allowed per USC and rulings (if I'm not mistaken).

I don't have the energy to type more. All in all, the DMCA needs some fangs pulled. Or fangs added, in the "perjury" category for entities that send out bad faith takedowns for code that they don't like. Has anyone ever been held legally responsible for a bad-faith DMCA takedown request? Don't think I've seen it.

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

#6

Post by kstrauser »

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 license. As long as stores advertise that I’m buying a book, then that’s what I’m purchasing.

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

#7

Post by perihelions »

>"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=25111726

(edited to remove inaccurate information from misread)

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

#10

Post by short12 »

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…

Why isn't is copyrightble by the owner of the repo?

The answer is, of course it's automatically copyrighted

Post reply on HN