Written by: Lawyer Li Xinyi

A ruling from the Hangzhou Internet Court has made it clear in the "Fat Tiger Vaccination" NFT infringement case: decentralization does not mean no responsibility; behind the technology, there are still clear legal boundaries.

Many people think that by merely developing technology, building platforms, and providing tools, they are not directly involved in infringement and should be fine. However, this ruling clearly points out that technology itself cannot serve as a "shield" against infringement; if used improperly, it can still be illegal.

In this article, we will discuss a key yet often overlooked concept: "technological circumvention of copyright."

• What is it?
• How can ordinary people avoid it?
• How can we find a balance between innovation and compliance?

Technological Circumvention of Infringement: The Fatal Shortcut Around the "Digital Lock"

In the Web3 and digital creation fields, there is a form of infringement that is often underestimated: it does not directly steal content but circumvents the "digital locks" that protect the content, such as cracking encryption, tampering with authorization agreements, or providing cracking tools. Although these actions may seem indirect, they are actually more harmful—like having a master key that opens the door to large-scale infringement.

These "locks" mainly include two types:

• Access control measures: such as paywalls and membership verification, which determine whether you "can enter";
• Copyright protection measures: such as anti-copy watermarks and DRM systems, which restrict what you "can do after entering."

Circumvention behaviors can also be divided into two categories:

• Direct circumvention: cracking it yourself, equivalent to "making your own key";
• Indirect circumvention: creating or providing cracking tools, equivalent to "opening a master key factory."

The law strictly punishes such behaviors because they make infringement "mass-produced": a single cracking tool can be used by thousands of people, severely disrupting copyright order and the creative ecosystem.

The "Landmine of Circumvention" in Web3: When Technology Meets Immutable Chains

After understanding the basic concepts, let's look at how it has mutated in the context of Web3.

• Broader circumvention targets: Previously, it was about cracking a specific software; now, it could be attacking a blockchain protocol that verifies AI training data copyrights or tampering with the logic of a smart contract that determines NFT access rights. The lock has turned into a virtual consensus.
• More complex actors: For example, a developer open-sources a script that circumvents a platform's technical protection measures on GitHub, receives funding through a DAO, and is automatically executed by globally anonymous nodes. The involved parties have transcended geographical limitations—developers, the DAO that voted for it, all executing nodes…
• Infringement consequences are recorded: On traditional networks, infringing content can be deleted. However, in Web3, common legal orders like "stop infringement" or "eliminate impact" become technically difficult to enforce. The infringement status may be permanently locked, and the rights holder's damages continue to occur, becoming irreversible.
• The law has clear red lines: According to the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate's "Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Infringement of Intellectual Property Rights," providing tools or services specifically designed to circumvent copyright protection measures can constitute a criminal offense if the circumstances are serious. If project parties cross this line, they will face legal sanctions directly; platform parties cannot exempt themselves with "technological neutrality" and must assume preliminary review obligations, or they may bear joint liability.

Establishing Compliance Guidelines: How to Move Safely in the Web3 Era

In the face of legal risks brought by technological circumvention, compliance is no longer an "optional" choice but a "lifeline" for the survival and development of Web3 projects. True compliance should be a collaborative construction of law, technology, and community governance:

• From "passive exemption" to "active governance": For platforms with substantial control, the role of lawyers has shifted from seeking "safe harbor" protection to assisting in establishing a copyright governance system that matches their capabilities, transforming legal obligations into executable monitoring checklists, such as smart contract review mechanisms and high-risk content monitoring.
• Compliance must "intervene early": Legal professional opinions should be introduced in the early stages of token model design and technology solution selection to fundamentally prevent circumvention risks. If problems have already arisen, professional defenses should clarify the boundaries between "technical exploration" and "malicious violation."
• Professional support is a long-term guarantee: In the evolving rules of the Web3 field, compliance construction requires support from teams that understand both technology and law. If you or your project face related risks or need to build a compliance framework, it is advisable to contact professional teams like Mankun Lawyers for comprehensive support from model design to risk response.

Only by embedding compliance awareness into the project's DNA and addressing potential risks with a forward-looking structure can we go further in balancing innovation and safety.

免责声明：本文章仅代表作者个人观点，不代表本平台的立场和观点。本文章仅供信息分享，不构成对任何人的任何投资建议。用户与作者之间的任何争议，与本平台无关。如网页中刊载的文章或图片涉及侵权，请提供相关的权利证明和身份证明发送邮件到support@aicoin.com，本平台相关工作人员将会进行核查。