This is what groups like the EFF are for: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_litigation_involving_t...

Sadly, you're mostly right and the comments section saying to find a pro-bono lawyer is laughable. I think anyone who believes that exists should actually reach out to a real lawyer and see how that conversation goes. I've had those conversations.

Firstly, they can't exist most of the time you can't actually call a lawyer and talk to them - you get their office and their "job" is to gatekeep that lawyer from making any discussions with anyone who isn't represented or paid for a consultation.

Secondly, once you do get into contact with them you'll get a blank stare or phone silence. This is not how most lawyers view pro-bono work. Most of them have a very small quota of pro-bono work to be done and that's it. They get assigned a case by their firm or go and accept a few a year from the state and they're done with it. The idea that an altruistic lawyer exists out there ready to do free and unpaid work is virtually non-existent today.

> 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.

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.

> 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?

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.

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?

Which is heartbreaking (and I'd argue misleading too), but not the whole story.

You can only issue takedowns in relation with material that you have copyright over. At least one of these sites I know for a fact routinely scrubs FAKKU licensed content, and abides by takedown requests.

That seems like an argument to go after the actual alleged illegally hosted materials through the proper DMCA takedown request.

what piracy sites is gallery-dl linking to?