13 ms·

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

319 points by xxyzz 5y ago

xxyzz 5y ago
noDRM's post on MobileRead: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4187904&postcount=1508 https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4187904&pos...
- Rebelgecko 5y ago
  Thanks. From the additional context in the link, it sounds like Readium might believe that this implementation is infringing on their proprietary ebook format code. I wonder if the taken down repo was a clean room implementation? If not they might have a case, if it looks similar
  - not2b 5y ago
    Doesn't matter if it is clean room or not. In the US, it isn't legal to share anti-DRM technology. Perhaps you could get some court to decide that this law violates the 1st Amendment, but that would be an uphill climb. People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site.
    - toyg 5y ago
      > People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site. This is the right answer. On this, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody in Russia/China/Iran/NK/$OtherCountryThatDoesntCareForRelationsWithUSA has built a "GitHub for shady programs" yet - or if they have, it has not gone mainstream yet, I admit to not being up-to-date with "the scene". It's fairly ridiculous that you'd publish hacking tools on a Microsoft-owned site based in the US, it's like storing lock-picking hardware in a police station.
      - jeroenhd 5y ago
        There are plenty of foreign hosts, the problem is that nobody knows about them. Gitee is a pretty big Chinese Github alternative, for example. Parts of the Russian software scene seems to prefer forums to dump software and source code. You won't find these repositories looking for them, because they're often in their native language. Many forum posts are also locked behind registration. I've used Google Translate a bunch of times to get Russian software working, but only after someone linked it to me.
      - easrng 5y ago
        There was https://git.rip https://git.rip but the creator got raided for other hacktivism and it was seized. (They need help with legal bills, donate at https://arson.cat https://arson.cat)
mindslight 5y ago
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.
- seoaeu 5y ago
  > 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"
  - mindslight 5y ago
    How does quoting a passage where they assert copyright ownership over one thing imply that they did not also assert copyright ownership over something else? > 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 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-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...
akersten 5y ago
> 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.
- lnxg33k1 5y ago
  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 something we need to solve as it's the challenge of our times
  - michaelmrose 5y ago
    > 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.
RKearney 5y ago
You can still download the repo off archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20211231094826/https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://web.archive.org/web/20211231094826/https://github.co... Click the green Code button, then Download ZIP.
- b112 5y ago
  For now...
- Ostrogodsky 5y ago
  Fantastic, thanks. Streissand effect at play, I would have never checked this repository otherwise.
- codys 5y ago
  One can also get the commit from github itself. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932282 for a newer hash. # clone the old repo noDRM/DeDRM_tools forked from git clone https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools cd DeDRM_tools # fetch the commit hash archive.org tells us about: git fetch origin 8c819c71376ab76445dd79d5cf2b28b6c0c2819e git checkout -b noDRM FETCH_HEAD
kstrauser 5y ago
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.
- reaperducer 5y ago
  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.
  - nosianu 5y ago
    I just went to amazon.de and looked at a book and I saw "Jetzt kaufen" which translates to "Buy now". Yes that was a Kindle edition. amazon.com won't show me a purchase option because it wants me to buys Kindle things on amazon.de, but below the bookw, pointing to other Kindle editions (I checked) it shoes "What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?", so there too it uses the word "buy".
  - JonathonW 5y ago
    I see a "Buy now with 1-Click" button on content I haven't already purchased. There is a "deliver to" dropdown, but it just selects where the content goes after I click that "Buy now" button.
  - jethro_tell 5y ago
    huh, mine says 'buy now' with a separate drop down for deliver to, the options include 'your library' and 'download to computer'
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
    > It says "Deliver to..." It says that right below "*Buy* now with 1-Click ®"
perihelions 5y ago
>"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-youtube-dl-is-back/ 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25111726 (edited to remove inaccurate information from misread)
- short12 5y ago
  Why isn't is copyrightble by the owner of the repo? The answer is, of course it's automatically copyrighted
- judge2020 5y ago
  Section 1201 also makes it illegal to circumvent DRM measures or manufacture/import/provide tools that do. > (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; Although, i'm not sure if DMCA notices commonly used for infringing content also work for violations of section 1201. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
  - stefan_ 5y ago
    Implementing a DRM scheme is not circumventing it. No circumvention here, you still need the password.
    - judge2020 5y ago
      Didn’t realize that, but I am still interested in whether or not a ‘DMCA notice’ can be used for the entire statute or just in removing duplicate copies of infringing content.
xvilka 5y ago
The amount of DMCA pull requests is staggering - every day there is a few: https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed
- darknavi 5y ago
  Here I am browsing all of this cool content via the WayBackMachibe. What a good repository of goodies!
  - analognoise 5y ago
    How are you going from the takedown notice to the original repo, to figure out what to ask the WayBack machine?
    - traverseda 5y ago
      Just read the pull requests, it will include links
ycIsGarbage 5y ago
tadfisher 5y ago
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.
- lobocinza 5y ago
  This might impact on availability of new titles on Libgen.
  - toyg 5y ago
    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.
    - lobocinza 5y ago
      Hope so. And hope that this bring attention to the issue.
  - syshum 5y ago
    AntiDRM is Hydra... Cut off one head, 100 grow back. All these efforts by copyright maximalist do is free recruitment for the Anti-Copyright crowd Every enforcement action they make, stronger the animosity towards copyright grows, their short term gains, will prove to be their downfall
    - lobocinza 5y ago
      Amen!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
stefan_ 5y ago
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 being written by a lawyer.
- cft 5y ago
  There has to be a meaningful liability for sending defective DMCA notices. But there won't be, wrong times.
  - sam0x17 5y ago
    When the boomers die out, the zoomers are going to obliterate DMCA. Their only exposure to it has been "thing that pisses off fav content creators"
    - Chris2048 5y ago
      Assuming zoomer political engagement vs letting politicians do what they want.
      - sam0x17 5y ago
        You don't even need any. Eventually the zoomers will be the boomers, is more my point. At some point, even the baseline becomes progressive.
- schoen 5y ago
  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]
femto113 5y ago
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 from an environment variable or a config file that wasn't included in the source I think this DMCA notice would have a lot harder time holding up.
- yellow_lead 5y ago
  Illegal number?
- loeg 5y ago
  The full number seems to be b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40f .
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - oauea 5y ago
    Explanation what it's used for: https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/principles/ https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/principles/
  - cyphar 5y ago
    In case you wanted the number in flag form (a-la AACS): https://imgur.com/a/EX8RWXM https://imgur.com/a/EX8RWXM.
  - traverseda 5y ago
    You mean the number between b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40e and b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d410 ?
DarkmSparks 5y ago
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 then Ive never had a problem getting enough drm free content to fill my boots to the end of time.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  What really sucks is that there are authors whos work I want to support but who have chosen (or more likely their publisher has chosen) to us a DRMd format. I find that frustrating but a lot of that has to do with the contract that the author signed to be able to write the book in the first place. I wish I could just skip all DRM free content but that is not the world I find myself in.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  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.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    Yes and users aren't going to boycott so it goes back to one of the main reasons we have a government, to battle ludicrous policies that an old government passed.
  - notafraudster 5y ago
    It depends on the metric for success: if the metric for success is that it ends the practice you oppose, then yes clearly individual, uncoordinated action won't do that. if the metric for success is that it extricates you from having to compromise on your principles, then it's quite easy to achieve success. e.g. Although I'd be happy for <evil firm X> to go bankrupt or desist from making the world a better place, I'd also be plenty happy knowing I'm not giving them money to make the world a better place.
dcow 5y ago
I’d love to hear from the copyright owner (the repo owner). According to github they were contacted and offered legal support. Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice? I could see how it would be easy to think “welp I help people remove DRM for archival and interoperability purposes and I got a DMCA notice it’s over”. I wonder if the EFF would be interested in lending support.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  from his statement on mobile read, it sounds like they were given 24 hours to take that help and did not check their email in time.
- gnopgnip 5y ago
  > Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice? Because they would lose their safe harbor protection under the DMCA, and could be sued directly by the rights holder. And because this work probably is in violation of the anti circumvention portion of the DMCA, so a lawsuit could be very expensive
kristofferR 5y ago
Mirror of the latest master from 29. Dec 2021: https://workupload.com/file/DzgMhFtcxdj https://workupload.com/file/DzgMhFtcxdj https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/pRAuHpYQ/file.html https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/pRAuHpYQ/file.html https://mirrorace.org/m/14t3h https://mirrorace.org/m/14t3h
cletus 5y ago
> 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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...
- kristo 5y ago
  fair use varies greatly state to state as far as I understand it
- jeroenhd 5y ago
  Fair use is such a meme at this point often perpetrated by content creators who want to infringe on copyright (because they disagree with many parts of copyright law) so they claim whatever they're doing is just "fair use". The authors of this library can't possibly defend themselves by claiming fair use and they damn well know it. The real question is whether the tool really does break encryption or if the tool is just an implementation of the algorithm that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions. Theoretically, a white-room reverse engineered implementation could be written without signing any contract and the terms and conditions would only serve to cut off their access after violation, but you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of that. I don't favour their chances in a lawsuit, but as they don't publish any keys, it's clear that they don't really break anything. There could still be a violation going on if they hold one of those silly American software patents, but that would be solvable by only distributing the tools in countries where these patents can't be enforced. That also wouldn't be covered by a DMCA takedown of course, they'd need to start an actual lawsuit for that.
bitwize 5y ago
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.
- wtallis 5y ago
  > "an activity using the material" You cut off a few words that probably carry real meaning: > "does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;" So there's a (somewhat ambiguous) restriction that the only activities this clause is concerned with are those happening on the system or network operated by the service provider that wants safe harbor protection against liability for their users' infringement. And to determine what activities can qualify as copyright infringement, you have to look in section 501 and the other sections it references; section 512 does not alter the definition of copyright infringement, it just adds nuance to who can be held liable for infringement.
- EMIRELADERO 5y ago
  > Good. I don't get your comment. Are you happy that the law is being enforced, or happy that the law is like that?
  - bitwize 5y ago
    Both. I know enough people in creative industries to know that digital distribution just isn't viable without DRM -- and that creatives want an environment with strongly enforced copyright. As a society we value the livelihood of artists over the convenience of their audience, and that's why we pass laws like the DMCA. The Napster era has totally destroyed interesting music scenes because the musicians couldn't put food on the table making music. DRM enforces copyright in an environment where infringement would otherwise be rampant because of how easy it is -- computers being, like VCRs, general purpose copyright infringement machines. Geez, even the concept of hypertext, as elucidated by Ted Nelson, had DRM built in because other people's IP rights become a fact of life you have to reckon with the minute you deal with readable material! Of course, DRM schemes fail, and that's where the law comes in. Section 1201 delegitimizes markets for DRM exploits that would otherwise return us to a situation where infringement is rampant, easy, and undetectable. It drives circumvention activity underground, adding friction to the process and making it more difficult than simply buying the material. There's a real simple principle that geeks don't seem to get: If you want access to digital content without being sued or jailed, just buy it legitimately and don't fucking break the DRM. Abide by the terms the author or publisher has set, or don't buy the content at all. The droit d'auteur, as a moral principle, means that said author or publisher has a moral right to determine how their work is to be exhibited or viewed.
roastedpeacock 5y ago
What can we do to oppose this idiocy that is trampling legitimate fair-use provisions of otherwise licensed content? It's been 10 years since the SOPA protests and while we may have stopped that three headed monster, the global situation with USA attempting to expand DMCA and similar measures to other countries is atrocious. Other than recent EU court rulings potentially expanding what constitutes fair-use in that territory the situation is not looking good in the West.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  The EU should oppose this. I mean the publishers greased the palms of Senators and Representatives here, not in the European union thus they are owed nothing.
  - arhomberg 5y ago
    In fact the EU in part funded the development of the Readium LCP system through the European Digital Reading Lab (EDRL),a non-profit community-driven organisation, who are the complainant in this case.
mikevm 5y ago
What's the difference between this and Apprentice Alf's DeDRM tools repo which is still up?
- hvdijk 5y ago
  Probably these bits: > The user noDRM is actively promoting the activity of cracking both library loans and one-off purchases: > https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2#issuecomment-979106126 https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2#issuecomment-9... > This departs from the policy of the user [private], from which noDRM has forked the repository DeDRM_tools. The user [private] does not provide circumvention material for the LCP solution, therefore it is not part of our request for takedown.
  - SSLy 5y ago
    Snapshot for posterity https://web.archive.org/web/20211231150220/https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2 https://web.archive.org/web/20211231150220/https://github.co...
tjoff 5y ago
I almost always miss context in these cases. What did noDRM do? Or perhaps, from what was DRM removed/filtered?
- k_sze 5y ago
  ebooks
- toyg 5y ago
  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.
  - tjoff 5y ago
    Thanks, I've actually used it to great success but the name alone wasn't enough for me to make the connection.
- arhomberg 5y ago
  The community-developed LCP software is used by public libraries (mostly in Europe) to lend ebooks to patrons fora limited period of time, say one month. What NoDRM allows is for that lending period to be broken, so that patrons (readers) can read the ebook they have borrowed forma public library indefinitely. The practical consequence is that copyright owners (authors, publishers., etc) would in most cases cease to make ebooks available for lending. In some cases Readium LCP is also used by ebook vendors (retailers), mostly small European ones, as an alternative to Adobe's RMSDK, but the LCP platform is constructed such that if you buy the ebook from one vendor that you can read it on the app of any other vendor using Readium LCP, even if their authentication server is different (Adobe always requires authentication through a central Adobe server, meaning the end user needs an account both with Adobe AND the vendor/library, something not required with Readium LCP). IT is the most interpoerable system available in the publishing ecosystem
KronisLV 5y ago
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!?
sanxiyn 5y ago
If it is a DMCA problem, shouldn't we mirror this to Gitee, a Chinese GitHub clone? China seems to be more free than USA in this respect.
- alanhaha 5y ago
  I would definitely suggest you not doing this. Your code can be hidden without any notification, just showing "该文件疑似存在违规内容，无法显示" (The file is suspected to contain illegal content and cannot be displayed). You even don't know which part has the issue and how to modify.
- intsunny 5y ago
  China is far more authoritarian and blunt than the United States government. A famous example would be how clowwindy, the author of the ShadowSocks VPN, was "invited for a cup of tea by the Chinese police".[0] [0] https://printempw.github.io/about-clowwindy-archive/ https://printempw.github.io/about-clowwindy-archive/
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
qwerty456127 5y ago
Seems unbelievable the distributed/federated/p2p/blockchain Web 3.0 hype is all around and we still don't have a censorship-proof alternative to GitHub.
teekert 5y ago
My kindle keyboard died last week (which I used for an impressive 11 years). Copying over the books (using Calibre) to my new PocketBook touch HD3 I got a lot of errors and was reminded of the fact that I don't own most of my Amazon books. I knew it was going to happen, but it's still soooo annoying. Hooray for De-DRM and usenet, I't probably faster to re-download then to get the De-DRM set up.
arhomberg 5y ago
I find it quite disheartening that nobody (or at least very few people in this thread) have looked who the complainant(s) actually are, i.e. the European Digital Reading Lab (EDRL) and (indirectly) the Readium foundation, both of which are community–driven non-profit organisation, operating on very modest budgets. The Readium LCP software system (as distinct from the Readium the reading applications) was created a community effort to offer readers a user-friendly alternative to proprietary DRM systems. IT plays a particularly strong role in libraries ebook lending where it’s rule it is to ensure that a loan is just that a loan. I understand the misgivings some have about the DMCA, copyright law and associated copyright protections, and the capitalist system in general. However, please set these aside for a moment and look at the situation from the perspective of readers, authors and others. Readium LCP is fundamentally a trust system. It relies on copyright holders and that is not just large media companies, but small independent publishers, authors, agents and similar. The largest consumer publisher (Penguin Random House) is but less than 1/100th the size of Apple or Amazon. Also the earning of an average author in the UK is in the neighborhood of a mere £7,00 per year. If beg everyone to consider what the practical ramifications would be of destroying trust in a community-driven platform hat spent years to generate. It means library lending of ebooks would cease entirely or revert to the old system such as Adobe’s RMSDK (reader mobile software development kit) with all the usability issues so familiar to anyone who does software development in the publishing ecosystem. Aside: the acronym LCP originally stood for “lightweight content protection system” it is “lightweight” by design. For “marketing" reasons (or what I call “trust building”) it was later changed to stand for “licensed content protection”. Also note that this is a discussion about consumer publishing “trade publishing in the vernacular of the industry) which is distinct from academic publishing (scientific journals, textbooks, etc.) a market dominated by Elsevier, Springer Nature and similar where Readium LCP is hardly used. Disclaimer: Yes, I personally engage in weekly Readium engineering calls, but neither me not my organisation use or contribute to Readium LCP. WE use and contribute to the general Readium ebook reading software. I can attest that Readium comes with all the issues and problems of a community-driven open software system, but please recognise it for what it is, a community-driven , not-for profit effort.
- jdbernard 5y ago
  I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say here. This feels like the positive version of an ad-hominem attack: "Ignore what they're doing because they're really good guys." None of this changes the fact that the removed tools where the primary means for most people to unencumber content they own. You have one paragraph dismissing DMCA and copyright, but that's the primary issue here. The fact that it's Readium issuing the DMCA notice instead of Amazon is immaterial in my opinion. The effect is the same.
julielit 5y ago
Why do we use DeDRM tools or equivalent? to be able to move a file from one ereader to another, from another brand; to feel that we "own" ebooks we have "bought"; to be sure that we keep ebooks in case the booksellers goes off-market; to be able to give and ebook we bought to a few friends. What does kindle and other proprietary DRMs offer? none of it. What do companies adopting Readium LCP offer? all of the above. The original https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools is still open, everybody can use it, Amazon, Adobe, B&N, Kobo don't bother, so it can be used, updated without bits of Readium LCP. LCP which is moving in the right direction IMO: being able to give an ebook to a friend by simply giving the password is great. Plus, why do some people want to keep and share with the world ebooks they had for free from a public library: they totally crush the only solution which makes litterature available to everyone: if this spreads, libraries will not be able to get ebooks from major publishers anymore. Is it what they really want?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
literallyaduck 5y ago
Stop thinking of github as source control. It is source out of your control. Decentralized source code is required. If another entity can take your repo it isn't your repo. If another entity can ninja commit to your repo with a bot it isn't your repo. If your code can be taken down by a corporation or government, it isn't your repo.
cryptonek 5y ago
I hope that I am not the only one who did this: https://github.com/cryptonek/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/cryptonek/DeDRM_tools By the way I got an idea to gather all these illegal values in one repo: https://github.com/cryptonek/illegal-numbers https://github.com/cryptonek/illegal-numbers I'm counting on your help! PS. If someone is able to provide me all Git history of DeDRM repo, drop me an email to address that I used in a commit. I will force-push the repo with original state.
thrdbndndn 5y ago
It looks like the repo has been restored.
EtherTyper 5y ago
https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools/commit/4d4368598f5d1ada0c5e8f6406205e006f258d65 https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools/commit/4d436...

319 points by xxyzz 5y ago

noDRM's post on MobileRead: https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4187904&postcount=1508 https://www.mobileread.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4187904&pos...

Rebelgecko 5y ago
Thanks. From the additional context in the link, it sounds like Readium might believe that this implementation is infringing on their proprietary ebook format code. I wonder if the taken down repo was a clean room implementation? If not they might have a case, if it looks similar
- not2b 5y ago
  Doesn't matter if it is clean room or not. In the US, it isn't legal to share anti-DRM technology. Perhaps you could get some court to decide that this law violates the 1st Amendment, but that would be an uphill climb. People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site.
  - toyg 5y ago
    > People shouldn't host anti-DRM stuff on any US site. This is the right answer. On this, I'm somewhat surprised that nobody in Russia/China/Iran/NK/$OtherCountryThatDoesntCareForRelationsWithUSA has built a "GitHub for shady programs" yet - or if they have, it has not gone mainstream yet, I admit to not being up-to-date with "the scene". It's fairly ridiculous that you'd publish hacking tools on a Microsoft-owned site based in the US, it's like storing lock-picking hardware in a police station.
    - jeroenhd 5y ago
      There are plenty of foreign hosts, the problem is that nobody knows about them. Gitee is a pretty big Chinese Github alternative, for example. Parts of the Russian software scene seems to prefer forums to dump software and source code. You won't find these repositories looking for them, because they're often in their native language. Many forum posts are also locked behind registration. I've used Google Translate a bunch of times to get Russian software working, but only after someone linked it to me.
    - easrng 5y ago
      There was https://git.rip https://git.rip but the creator got raided for other hacktivism and it was seized. (They need help with legal bills, donate at https://arson.cat https://arson.cat)

mindslight 5y ago

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.

seoaeu 5y ago
> 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"
- mindslight 5y ago
  How does quoting a passage where they assert copyright ownership over one thing imply that they did not also assert copyright ownership over something else? > 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 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-submitting-a-dmca-takedown-notice#complaints-about-anti-circumvention-technology https://docs.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...

akersten 5y ago

> 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.

lnxg33k1 5y ago
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 something we need to solve as it's the challenge of our times
- michaelmrose 5y ago
  > 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.

RKearney 5y ago

You can still download the repo off archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20211231094826/https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools https://web.archive.org/web/20211231094826/https://github.co... Click the green Code button, then Download ZIP.

b112 5y ago
For now...
Ostrogodsky 5y ago
Fantastic, thanks. Streissand effect at play, I would have never checked this repository otherwise.
codys 5y ago
One can also get the commit from github itself. Also, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932282 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29932282 for a newer hash. # clone the old repo noDRM/DeDRM_tools forked from git clone https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools cd DeDRM_tools # fetch the commit hash archive.org tells us about: git fetch origin 8c819c71376ab76445dd79d5cf2b28b6c0c2819e git checkout -b noDRM FETCH_HEAD

kstrauser 5y ago

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.

reaperducer 5y ago
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.
- nosianu 5y ago
  I just went to amazon.de and looked at a book and I saw "Jetzt kaufen" which translates to "Buy now". Yes that was a Kindle edition. amazon.com won't show me a purchase option because it wants me to buys Kindle things on amazon.de, but below the bookw, pointing to other Kindle editions (I checked) it shoes "What other items do customers buy after viewing this item?", so there too it uses the word "buy".
- JonathonW 5y ago
  I see a "Buy now with 1-Click" button on content I haven't already purchased. There is a "deliver to" dropdown, but it just selects where the content goes after I click that "Buy now" button.
- jethro_tell 5y ago
  huh, mine says 'buy now' with a separate drop down for deliver to, the options include 'your library' and 'download to computer'
- 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 5y ago
  > It says "Deliver to..." It says that right below "*Buy* now with 1-Click ®"

perihelions 5y ago

>"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-youtube-dl-is-back/ 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 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25111726 (edited to remove inaccurate information from misread)

short12 5y ago
Why isn't is copyrightble by the owner of the repo? The answer is, of course it's automatically copyrighted
judge2020 5y ago
Section 1201 also makes it illegal to circumvent DRM measures or manufacture/import/provide tools that do. > (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; Although, i'm not sure if DMCA notices commonly used for infringing content also work for violations of section 1201. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201
- stefan_ 5y ago
  Implementing a DRM scheme is not circumventing it. No circumvention here, you still need the password.
  - judge2020 5y ago
    Didn’t realize that, but I am still interested in whether or not a ‘DMCA notice’ can be used for the entire statute or just in removing duplicate copies of infringing content.

xvilka 5y ago

The amount of DMCA pull requests is staggering - every day there is a few: https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed https://github.com/github/dmca/pulls?q=is%3Apr+is%3Aclosed

darknavi 5y ago
Here I am browsing all of this cool content via the WayBackMachibe. What a good repository of goodies!
- analognoise 5y ago
  How are you going from the takedown notice to the original repo, to figure out what to ask the WayBack machine?
  - traverseda 5y ago
    Just read the pull requests, it will include links

ycIsGarbage 5y ago

tadfisher 5y ago

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.

lobocinza 5y ago
This might impact on availability of new titles on Libgen.
- toyg 5y ago
  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.
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Hope so. And hope that this bring attention to the issue.
- syshum 5y ago
  AntiDRM is Hydra... Cut off one head, 100 grow back. All these efforts by copyright maximalist do is free recruitment for the Anti-Copyright crowd Every enforcement action they make, stronger the animosity towards copyright grows, their short term gains, will prove to be their downfall
  - lobocinza 5y ago
    Amen!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

stefan_ 5y ago

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 being written by a lawyer.

cft 5y ago
There has to be a meaningful liability for sending defective DMCA notices. But there won't be, wrong times.
- sam0x17 5y ago
  When the boomers die out, the zoomers are going to obliterate DMCA. Their only exposure to it has been "thing that pisses off fav content creators"
  - Chris2048 5y ago
    Assuming zoomer political engagement vs letting politicians do what they want.
    - sam0x17 5y ago
      You don't even need any. Eventually the zoomers will be the boomers, is more my point. At some point, even the baseline becomes progressive.
schoen 5y ago
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]

femto113 5y ago

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 from an environment variable or a config file that wasn't included in the source I think this DMCA notice would have a lot harder time holding up.

yellow_lead 5y ago
Illegal number?
loeg 5y ago
The full number seems to be b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40f .
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- oauea 5y ago
  Explanation what it's used for: https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/principles/ https://www.edrlab.org/readium-lcp/principles/
- cyphar 5y ago
  In case you wanted the number in flag form (a-la AACS): https://imgur.com/a/EX8RWXM https://imgur.com/a/EX8RWXM.
- traverseda 5y ago
  You mean the number between b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d40e and b3a07c4d42880e69398e05392405050efeea0664c0b638b7c986556fa9b58d77b31a40eb6a4fdba1e4537229d9f779daad1cc41ee968153cb71f27dc9696d410 ?

DarkmSparks 5y ago

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 then Ive never had a problem getting enough drm free content to fill my boots to the end of time.

jethro_tell 5y ago
What really sucks is that there are authors whos work I want to support but who have chosen (or more likely their publisher has chosen) to us a DRMd format. I find that frustrating but a lot of that has to do with the contract that the author signed to be able to write the book in the first place. I wish I could just skip all DRM free content but that is not the world I find myself in.
ashtonkem 5y ago
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.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  Yes and users aren't going to boycott so it goes back to one of the main reasons we have a government, to battle ludicrous policies that an old government passed.
- notafraudster 5y ago
  It depends on the metric for success: if the metric for success is that it ends the practice you oppose, then yes clearly individual, uncoordinated action won't do that. if the metric for success is that it extricates you from having to compromise on your principles, then it's quite easy to achieve success. e.g. Although I'd be happy for <evil firm X> to go bankrupt or desist from making the world a better place, I'd also be plenty happy knowing I'm not giving them money to make the world a better place.

dcow 5y ago

I’d love to hear from the copyright owner (the repo owner). According to github they were contacted and offered legal support. Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice? I could see how it would be easy to think “welp I help people remove DRM for archival and interoperability purposes and I got a DMCA notice it’s over”. I wonder if the EFF would be interested in lending support.

jethro_tell 5y ago
from his statement on mobile read, it sounds like they were given 24 hours to take that help and did not check their email in time.
gnopgnip 5y ago
> Why didn't they take it or investigate and challenge the notice? Because they would lose their safe harbor protection under the DMCA, and could be sued directly by the rights holder. And because this work probably is in violation of the anti circumvention portion of the DMCA, so a lawsuit could be very expensive

kristofferR 5y ago

Mirror of the latest master from 29. Dec 2021: https://workupload.com/file/DzgMhFtcxdj https://workupload.com/file/DzgMhFtcxdj https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/pRAuHpYQ/file.html https://www15.zippyshare.com/v/pRAuHpYQ/file.html https://mirrorace.org/m/14t3h https://mirrorace.org/m/14t3h

cletus 5y ago

> 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 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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_dealing [3]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AACS_encryption_key_controvers...

kristo 5y ago
fair use varies greatly state to state as far as I understand it
jeroenhd 5y ago
Fair use is such a meme at this point often perpetrated by content creators who want to infringe on copyright (because they disagree with many parts of copyright law) so they claim whatever they're doing is just "fair use". The authors of this library can't possibly defend themselves by claiming fair use and they damn well know it. The real question is whether the tool really does break encryption or if the tool is just an implementation of the algorithm that doesn't comply with their terms and conditions. Theoretically, a white-room reverse engineered implementation could be written without signing any contract and the terms and conditions would only serve to cut off their access after violation, but you'd probably have a hard time convincing a judge of that. I don't favour their chances in a lawsuit, but as they don't publish any keys, it's clear that they don't really break anything. There could still be a violation going on if they hold one of those silly American software patents, but that would be solvable by only distributing the tools in countries where these patents can't be enforced. That also wouldn't be covered by a DMCA takedown of course, they'd need to start an actual lawsuit for that.

bitwize 5y ago

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.

wtallis 5y ago
> "an activity using the material" You cut off a few words that probably carry real meaning: > "does not have actual knowledge that the material or an activity using the material on the system or network is infringing;" So there's a (somewhat ambiguous) restriction that the only activities this clause is concerned with are those happening on the system or network operated by the service provider that wants safe harbor protection against liability for their users' infringement. And to determine what activities can qualify as copyright infringement, you have to look in section 501 and the other sections it references; section 512 does not alter the definition of copyright infringement, it just adds nuance to who can be held liable for infringement.
EMIRELADERO 5y ago
> Good. I don't get your comment. Are you happy that the law is being enforced, or happy that the law is like that?
- bitwize 5y ago
  Both. I know enough people in creative industries to know that digital distribution just isn't viable without DRM -- and that creatives want an environment with strongly enforced copyright. As a society we value the livelihood of artists over the convenience of their audience, and that's why we pass laws like the DMCA. The Napster era has totally destroyed interesting music scenes because the musicians couldn't put food on the table making music. DRM enforces copyright in an environment where infringement would otherwise be rampant because of how easy it is -- computers being, like VCRs, general purpose copyright infringement machines. Geez, even the concept of hypertext, as elucidated by Ted Nelson, had DRM built in because other people's IP rights become a fact of life you have to reckon with the minute you deal with readable material! Of course, DRM schemes fail, and that's where the law comes in. Section 1201 delegitimizes markets for DRM exploits that would otherwise return us to a situation where infringement is rampant, easy, and undetectable. It drives circumvention activity underground, adding friction to the process and making it more difficult than simply buying the material. There's a real simple principle that geeks don't seem to get: If you want access to digital content without being sued or jailed, just buy it legitimately and don't fucking break the DRM. Abide by the terms the author or publisher has set, or don't buy the content at all. The droit d'auteur, as a moral principle, means that said author or publisher has a moral right to determine how their work is to be exhibited or viewed.

roastedpeacock 5y ago

What can we do to oppose this idiocy that is trampling legitimate fair-use provisions of otherwise licensed content? It's been 10 years since the SOPA protests and while we may have stopped that three headed monster, the global situation with USA attempting to expand DMCA and similar measures to other countries is atrocious. Other than recent EU court rulings potentially expanding what constitutes fair-use in that territory the situation is not looking good in the West.

stjohnswarts 5y ago
The EU should oppose this. I mean the publishers greased the palms of Senators and Representatives here, not in the European union thus they are owed nothing.
- arhomberg 5y ago
  In fact the EU in part funded the development of the Readium LCP system through the European Digital Reading Lab (EDRL),a non-profit community-driven organisation, who are the complainant in this case.

mikevm 5y ago

What's the difference between this and Apprentice Alf's DeDRM tools repo which is still up?

hvdijk 5y ago
Probably these bits: > The user noDRM is actively promoting the activity of cracking both library loans and one-off purchases: > https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2#issuecomment-979106126 https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2#issuecomment-9... > This departs from the policy of the user [private], from which noDRM has forked the repository DeDRM_tools. The user [private] does not provide circumvention material for the LCP solution, therefore it is not part of our request for takedown.
- SSLy 5y ago
  Snapshot for posterity https://web.archive.org/web/20211231150220/https://github.com/noDRM/DeDRM_tools/issues/2 https://web.archive.org/web/20211231150220/https://github.co...

tjoff 5y ago

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

k_sze 5y ago
ebooks
toyg 5y ago
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.
- tjoff 5y ago
  Thanks, I've actually used it to great success but the name alone wasn't enough for me to make the connection.
arhomberg 5y ago
The community-developed LCP software is used by public libraries (mostly in Europe) to lend ebooks to patrons fora limited period of time, say one month. What NoDRM allows is for that lending period to be broken, so that patrons (readers) can read the ebook they have borrowed forma public library indefinitely. The practical consequence is that copyright owners (authors, publishers., etc) would in most cases cease to make ebooks available for lending. In some cases Readium LCP is also used by ebook vendors (retailers), mostly small European ones, as an alternative to Adobe's RMSDK, but the LCP platform is constructed such that if you buy the ebook from one vendor that you can read it on the app of any other vendor using Readium LCP, even if their authentication server is different (Adobe always requires authentication through a central Adobe server, meaning the end user needs an account both with Adobe AND the vendor/library, something not required with Readium LCP). IT is the most interpoerable system available in the publishing ecosystem

KronisLV 5y ago

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!?

sanxiyn 5y ago

If it is a DMCA problem, shouldn't we mirror this to Gitee, a Chinese GitHub clone? China seems to be more free than USA in this respect.

alanhaha 5y ago
I would definitely suggest you not doing this. Your code can be hidden without any notification, just showing "该文件疑似存在违规内容，无法显示" (The file is suspected to contain illegal content and cannot be displayed). You even don't know which part has the issue and how to modify.
intsunny 5y ago
China is far more authoritarian and blunt than the United States government. A famous example would be how clowwindy, the author of the ShadowSocks VPN, was "invited for a cup of tea by the Chinese police".[0] [0] https://printempw.github.io/about-clowwindy-archive/ https://printempw.github.io/about-clowwindy-archive/

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

qwerty456127 5y ago

Seems unbelievable the distributed/federated/p2p/blockchain Web 3.0 hype is all around and we still don't have a censorship-proof alternative to GitHub.

teekert 5y ago

My kindle keyboard died last week (which I used for an impressive 11 years). Copying over the books (using Calibre) to my new PocketBook touch HD3 I got a lot of errors and was reminded of the fact that I don't own most of my Amazon books. I knew it was going to happen, but it's still soooo annoying. Hooray for De-DRM and usenet, I't probably faster to re-download then to get the De-DRM set up.

arhomberg 5y ago

I find it quite disheartening that nobody (or at least very few people in this thread) have looked who the complainant(s) actually are, i.e. the European Digital Reading Lab (EDRL) and (indirectly) the Readium foundation, both of which are community–driven non-profit organisation, operating on very modest budgets. The Readium LCP software system (as distinct from the Readium the reading applications) was created a community effort to offer readers a user-friendly alternative to proprietary DRM systems. IT plays a particularly strong role in libraries ebook lending where it’s rule it is to ensure that a loan is just that a loan. I understand the misgivings some have about the DMCA, copyright law and associated copyright protections, and the capitalist system in general. However, please set these aside for a moment and look at the situation from the perspective of readers, authors and others. Readium LCP is fundamentally a trust system. It relies on copyright holders and that is not just large media companies, but small independent publishers, authors, agents and similar. The largest consumer publisher (Penguin Random House) is but less than 1/100th the size of Apple or Amazon. Also the earning of an average author in the UK is in the neighborhood of a mere £7,00 per year. If beg everyone to consider what the practical ramifications would be of destroying trust in a community-driven platform hat spent years to generate. It means library lending of ebooks would cease entirely or revert to the old system such as Adobe’s RMSDK (reader mobile software development kit) with all the usability issues so familiar to anyone who does software development in the publishing ecosystem. Aside: the acronym LCP originally stood for “lightweight content protection system” it is “lightweight” by design. For “marketing" reasons (or what I call “trust building”) it was later changed to stand for “licensed content protection”. Also note that this is a discussion about consumer publishing “trade publishing in the vernacular of the industry) which is distinct from academic publishing (scientific journals, textbooks, etc.) a market dominated by Elsevier, Springer Nature and similar where Readium LCP is hardly used. Disclaimer: Yes, I personally engage in weekly Readium engineering calls, but neither me not my organisation use or contribute to Readium LCP. WE use and contribute to the general Readium ebook reading software. I can attest that Readium comes with all the issues and problems of a community-driven open software system, but please recognise it for what it is, a community-driven , not-for profit effort.

jdbernard 5y ago
I'm not sure what you're actually trying to say here. This feels like the positive version of an ad-hominem attack: "Ignore what they're doing because they're really good guys." None of this changes the fact that the removed tools where the primary means for most people to unencumber content they own. You have one paragraph dismissing DMCA and copyright, but that's the primary issue here. The fact that it's Readium issuing the DMCA notice instead of Amazon is immaterial in my opinion. The effect is the same.

julielit 5y ago

Why do we use DeDRM tools or equivalent? to be able to move a file from one ereader to another, from another brand; to feel that we "own" ebooks we have "bought"; to be sure that we keep ebooks in case the booksellers goes off-market; to be able to give and ebook we bought to a few friends. What does kindle and other proprietary DRMs offer? none of it. What do companies adopting Readium LCP offer? all of the above. The original https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools is still open, everybody can use it, Amazon, Adobe, B&N, Kobo don't bother, so it can be used, updated without bits of Readium LCP. LCP which is moving in the right direction IMO: being able to give an ebook to a friend by simply giving the password is great. Plus, why do some people want to keep and share with the world ebooks they had for free from a public library: they totally crush the only solution which makes litterature available to everyone: if this spreads, libraries will not be able to get ebooks from major publishers anymore. Is it what they really want?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

literallyaduck 5y ago

Stop thinking of github as source control. It is source out of your control. Decentralized source code is required. If another entity can take your repo it isn't your repo. If another entity can ninja commit to your repo with a bot it isn't your repo. If your code can be taken down by a corporation or government, it isn't your repo.

cryptonek 5y ago

I hope that I am not the only one who did this: https://github.com/cryptonek/DeDRM_tools https://github.com/cryptonek/DeDRM_tools By the way I got an idea to gather all these illegal values in one repo: https://github.com/cryptonek/illegal-numbers https://github.com/cryptonek/illegal-numbers I'm counting on your help! PS. If someone is able to provide me all Git history of DeDRM repo, drop me an email to address that I used in a commit. I will force-push the repo with original state.

thrdbndndn 5y ago

It looks like the repo has been restored.

EtherTyper 5y ago

https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools/commit/4d4368598f5d1ada0c5e8f6406205e006f258d65 https://github.com/apprenticeharper/DeDRM_tools/commit/4d436...