Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by R0b0t1 1624 days ago
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.
2 comments
tsimionescu 1623 days ago
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.

link
schoen 1623 days ago
There's no exception to the tools prohibition based on purpose. One of many harsh features of ยง1201.
link
R0b0t1 1623 days ago
Nope, the law contradicts itself. In such a conflict it is typical to favor the consumer.
link
wtallis 1623 days ago
Can you point out the contradicting bits?
link
R0b0t1 1623 days ago
The law allows people to circumvent copy protection to access works they are entitled to access. There is also a provision against sharing copy protection breaking methods.

I never interpreted them as clashing, merely that I can't knowingly share copy breaking mechanisms with people who are unauthorized to use a work. If they do clash then you have to side with the consumer.

link
wtallis 1623 days ago
> The law allows people to circumvent copy protection to access works they are entitled to access.

Claiming that such an allowance exists is not the same as actually identifying the statute or ruling that creates the allowance. What is your textual basis for claiming that there's a general permission for circumvention?

> If they do clash then you have to side with the consumer.

This sounds like you're referring to a concept that exists in contract law, but has no applicability to a question of how to handle a conflict between two provisions in law. In such a case, the courts will usually uphold whichever provision actually exists in the text of the law.

link
R0b0t1 1622 days ago
Have you actually read the law you're discussing? It was in the first amendment to the DMCA, because they realized they can't prevent people from accessing things they paid for.

Full text of 1201 here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201. Note the many exemptions. You could just call it encryption research. You also need to look at the list of exemptions granted by the library of congress, which is quite extensive: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Millennium_Copyright_A....

I can't actually find the thing I am looking for. AFAIR the Cornell law site does not have the updated version that I need to reference, but you can see by the exemptions granted they are just codifying your rights to continue to use a work, even if it is not necessarily obsolete, if the copy protection has gotten in your way.

To actually change this rightsholders would have to lease works instead of selling them, but they still use the word "sell" when interacting with consumers.

link