The DRM removal tool to remove DRM from ebooks was taken down from github and will most likely be taken down from gitlab soon as well. The more archives we have the better so im sharing the gitlab in hopes some Datahoarder types will archive it and keep it shared via torrents etc https://gitlab.com/bipinkrish/DeGourou
Heres an article about why it was taken down https://torrentfreak.com/internet-archive-targets-book-drm-removal-tool-with-dmca-takedown-230714/
Edit: does anyone here use https://radicle.xyz/ ? Its a p2p network built on top of git and could be a good way to host it while still being able to contribute to it besides making a .torrent for archiving
I went ahead and just cloned it to my personal Gittea and made it public
Adding to the mirror list. Cloned it to my Codeberg and my private Forgejo instance.
I compressed the source into a tar.gz
. Here’s a link to that of the (at the time of writing) latest commit, 59140a147f
If you can, please update the readme download section since the releases button and git command still point to the old GitHub
Good call. I’ll try and do that but I am easily distracted so may end up disappointing you
Edit: Should be good now
Haha no worries
And thanks! Although it seems like the releases section is empty and the tags section doesn’t include any binaries
It seems to be FLOSS without a company trying to sell premium features behind it.
Imagine buying books and not being able to do with them what you like
Worthwile reading into: Hachette v. Internet Archive.
In short: Even lending only the amount of real copies that you own as digital copies (you own 1 real book, you get to lend 1 digital copy. Not more!) is too much for some greedy bastards and a compromise.
My local library is 25 miles away and only open 4 days a week, plus it’s about 40 miles away from the city where I do all my shopping so it is really out of the way. There is a different library in the city where I run my errands, but they charge a hefty fee for non-residents.
Imagine spending years writing a book for the benefit of others, only to have it downloaded, stripped of it’s licensing and given away to others for free and being robbed of compensation for the time you invested.
Imagine buying a physical book, reading it, and putting it on the bookshelf in your living room, only to have family members and friends borrow it and read it for free.
Yes because that’s totally the same as xeroxing someone else’s work and handing it out in the street to anyone who wants it, all day every day.
Imagine going on the piracy Lemmy community and preaching the moral wrongs of copying.
Seriously though, DRM is a cancer. I usually pirate my books from LibGen, but I buy them on the Kobo store at the same time to support the author. It’s easy to strip DRM from Kobo and they’re better than Amazon, but I would really prefer not to support a store with DRM in the first place.
Can anyone recommend a DRM-less store? Something akin to GOG for books.
Imagine being so entitled that you think you have a right to others’ work for free.
It sounds like you wrote a book for profit then, not for the benefit of others.
Imagine selling someone a book and then later clawing it back without a refund and without giving the victim a big fat warning that you’re going to do so.
@HughJanus
@cupcakezealot
this is not how compensation for writers works, generally, and also the whole idea is to break a traditional publishing system that exploits writers in favor of one where people directly pay the authors.
Unless the book is being bought directly from the writer, isn’t it really the publisher who is gaining the rewards? My understanding is that the writer is paid a lumpsum for rights of a book by a publisher.
If the entire motto is “benefit of others”, the writer themselves can publish it for the public to read openly, or make it a collaborative project where their and other people’s contributions are added together.
It’s not black and white, both sides of a piracy debate (much like anything else) have their arguments, and could have had reached a better medium.
I’d expect it to be removed soon, since it’s been done before
ı dont understand why people host things thats not aligned with corporate interests into GIthub, gitlab while Codeberg, GItea etc exits
for visibility, also codeberg is quite hostile to piracy related tools and whatnot, gitea is quite small not many instances and it gets unwanted attention. if they self-host, that’s even more risky because domain names, hosting etc can get tracked down to the owner. decentralized solutions are the best for these kind of things
It seems like they made the same mistake as youtube-dl back in the day. If you develop a tool that can be used for piracy, do not straight up advertise that in your readme/documentation.
If you create a YouTube downloader, do not show it downloading music from major labels, use for a creative commons track for the demo instead.
And dont say in the short description of your repo that this tool is meant to steal books from an online lending library.