4 ms·

It's lawful if you have a good faith belief that it's a circumvention tool. It might even be true. Not having a download button is a copy protection measure as

It's lawful if you have a good faith belief that it's a circumvention tool. It might even be true. Not having a download button is a copy protection measure as defined in the DMCA. If this project bypasses not having a download button, it's an illegal circumvention measure under DMCA.

ehhthing 6mo ago
The problem here is that the complaint seems to be filed by the copyright owner (or licensee) but the code is accessing piracy sites. There could be a circumvention case if the piracy site is the one filing the copyright complaint, but they have not.
- nondrool 6mo ago
  https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl/discussions/9304#discussioncomment-16279674 I know for sure that at least some of the listed sites already remove content in response to fakku dmca. There is no fakku content on there. https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl/discussions/9304#discussioncomment-16280050 they also list hentaifoundry which afaik is a site for users to post their own art and is certainly not a piracy site
dns_snek 6mo ago
> Not having a download button is a copy protection measure. That's absurd. Not having something is different from actively implementing measures to prevent something. I could similarly make the argument that any content that I can watch on my device doesn't really have copy protection measures because those bytes were purposefully copied into my display buffer. Anti-circumvention provisions are a cancer that needs to die. They can be used to criminalize just about anything.
- ls612 6mo ago
  You will own nothing and you will be happy. Or else.
close04 6mo ago
Is that the benchmark? A website that disables the right click to prevent visitors from saving the content can still be saved by the browser. That’s an active measure to disable downloads being circumvented by the browser. So is Chrome going down?
AnthonyMouse 6mo ago
> It's lawful if you have a good faith belief that it's a circumvention tool. Is it? Isn't Section 512 the takedown section that applies to infringing works (e.g. notices require "Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed", 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)) and Section 1201 the separate anti-circumvention section which has government-imposed criminal penalties but no private takedown provision?
fweimer 6mo ago
But that's a different process, not the usual notice-and-takedown notice procedure. If it's consider a circumvention device, there is no way to file a counterclaim, among other things.
47282847 6mo ago
Can you cite the relevant passages from the DMCA that support this argument? I have trouble bringing the two together.

ehhthing 6mo ago

The problem here is that the complaint seems to be filed by the copyright owner (or licensee) but the code is accessing piracy sites. There could be a circumvention case if the piracy site is the one filing the copyright complaint, but they have not.

nondrool 6mo ago
https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl/discussions/9304#discussioncomment-16279674 I know for sure that at least some of the listed sites already remove content in response to fakku dmca. There is no fakku content on there. https://github.com/mikf/gallery-dl/discussions/9304#discussioncomment-16280050 they also list hentaifoundry which afaik is a site for users to post their own art and is certainly not a piracy site

dns_snek 6mo ago

> Not having a download button is a copy protection measure. That's absurd. Not having something is different from actively implementing measures to prevent something. I could similarly make the argument that any content that I can watch on my device doesn't really have copy protection measures because those bytes were purposefully copied into my display buffer. Anti-circumvention provisions are a cancer that needs to die. They can be used to criminalize just about anything.

ls612 6mo ago
You will own nothing and you will be happy. Or else.

close04 6mo ago

Is that the benchmark? A website that disables the right click to prevent visitors from saving the content can still be saved by the browser. That’s an active measure to disable downloads being circumvented by the browser. So is Chrome going down?

AnthonyMouse 6mo ago

> It's lawful if you have a good faith belief that it's a circumvention tool. Is it? Isn't Section 512 the takedown section that applies to infringing works (e.g. notices require "Identification of the copyrighted work claimed to have been infringed", 512(c)(3)(A)(ii)) and Section 1201 the separate anti-circumvention section which has government-imposed criminal penalties but no private takedown provision?

fweimer 6mo ago

But that's a different process, not the usual notice-and-takedown notice procedure. If it's consider a circumvention device, there is no way to file a counterclaim, among other things.

47282847 6mo ago

Can you cite the relevant passages from the DMCA that support this argument? I have trouble bringing the two together.