Original Author: Lawyer Li Xinyi, Mankun Blockchain

Introduction

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 as long as they are just developing technology, building platforms, and providing tools without directly participating in infringement, they should be fine. However, this ruling clearly points out: 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: "Technology-evading copyright infringement."

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

Technology-Evading 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 instead bypasses 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."

Evading behavior can also be divided into two categories:

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

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

The "Evasion Minefield" of Web3: When Technology Bypasses Immutable Chains

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

• The targets of evasion are broader: previously, it was about cracking a specific software; now, it could be attacking a blockchain protocol that verifies AI training data copyright or tampering with the logic of a smart contract that determines NFT access rights. The lock has turned into a virtual consensus.
• The actors involved are more complex: for example, a developer open-sources a script that bypasses a platform's technical protection measures on GitHub, receives funding through a DAO, and is automatically executed by globally anonymous nodes. At this point, the involved parties have transcended geographical limitations—developers, the DAO that voted for it, all executing nodes…
• The consequences of infringement 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 state of infringement may be permanently locked, and the rights holder's damages continue to occur, becoming irreversible.
• The law has clear red lines on this: 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 bypass 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 technology evasion, 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 technical solution selection to fundamentally prevent evasion-type infringement risks. If problems have already arisen, professional defenses should clarify the boundaries between "technical exploration" and "malicious illegal behavior."
• 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 recommended 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。