Compliance is no longer a remedial measure but a core architectural element that must be designed in from the outset.

Introduction

A judgment by the Hangzhou Internet Court, in the "Panghu Gets Vaccinated" NFT infringement case, clearly informs us that:Decentralization does not mean absence of liability; behind the technology, there remain clear legal boundaries.

Many people assume that because they merely develop technology, build platforms, or provide tools without directly participating in infringement, they should face no consequences. However, this judgment clearly points out that:Technology itself cannot serve as a "shield" for infringement; if used improperly, it may still constitute illegality.

In this article, we will discuss a key yet often overlooked concept:"Technological Circumvention-Type Copyright Infringement."

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

 

Technological Circumvention-Type Infringement: The Fatal Shortcut of Bypassing "Digital Locks"

In the fields of Web3 and digital creation, one type of infringement is often underestimated: it does not involve directly stealing content, but rather bypassing the "digital locks" that protect content, such as cracking encryption, tampering with licensing agreements, or providing cracking tools. Although such acts may appear indirect, they are actually more harmful—akin to creating a master key that opens the door for large-scale infringement.

Such "locks" mainly include two types:

  • AccessControl Measures: such as paywalls and membership verification, which determine whether you "can enter";
  • CopyrightProtection Measures: such as anti-copying watermarks and Digital Rights Management (DRM) systems, which restrict "what you can do after entering."

Circumvention acts are also divided into two categories:

  • DirectCircumvention: cracking it yourself, equivalent to "making your own key";
  • IndirectCircumvention: creating or providing cracking tools, equivalent to "operating a master key factory."

The law severely cracks down on such acts because they enable "batch" infringement: a single cracking tool may be used by thousands or even tens of thousands of people, seriously disrupting copyright order and the creative ecosystem.

 

The "Circumvention Minefield" in Web3: When Technological Bypass Meets Immutable Chains

After understanding the basic concepts, let us examine their mutation in the Web3 context.

  • Broader Scope of Circumvention Targets: Previously, it involved cracking specific software; now, it may involveattacking a blockchain protocol that verifies the copyright of AI training data, or tampering with the logic of a smart contract that determines NFT access permissions.The lock has become virtual consensus.
  • More Complex Actors: For example, a developer open-sources a script on GitHub that bypasses a platform's technological protection measures, receives funding through a Decentralized Autonomous Organization (DAO), and is automatically executed by global anonymous nodes. At this point, the entities involved have transcended geographical limitations—including the developer, the DAO that voted for approval, and all executing nodes...
  • Infringement Consequences Are Recorded: On the traditional internet, infringing content can be deleted. However, in Web3, common legal orders such as "cease infringement" and "eliminate impact" become technically difficult to enforce. The state of infringement may be permanently locked, causing continuous and irreversible harm to rights holders.
  • The law has already established clear red lines regarding this:According to the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court and the Supreme People's Procuratorate on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Handling Criminal Cases of Intellectual Property Infringement, providing tools or services specifically designed to circumvent copyright protection measures may constitute a criminal offense if the circumstances are serious. Project parties that cross this line will face direct legal sanctions; platform operators cannot evade liability by claiming "technological neutrality" and must fulfill preliminary review obligations, otherwise they may bear joint and several liability.

 

Establishing a Compliance Guide: How to Proceed Safely in the Web3 Era

In the face of legal risks arising from technological circumvention, compliance is no longer an "option" but the "lifeline" for the survival and development of Web3 projects.True compliance should be a collaborative effort involving law, technology, and community governance:

  • From "Passive Exemption" to "Proactive Governance":For platforms with substantial control, the role of lawyers has shifted from seeking "safe harbor" protection to assisting in the establishment of a copyright governance system commensurate with their capabilities, transforming legal obligations into executable monitoring checklists, such as smart contract audit mechanisms and high-risk content monitoring.
  • Compliance Must "Intervene Early":Legal professional advice should be introduced at early stages, such as token model design and technical solution selection, to fundamentally prevent the risk of circumvention-type infringement. If problems have already arisen, professional defense is needed to clarify the boundary between "technological exploration" and "malicious illegality."
  • Professional Support Is a Long-Term Guarantee:In the Web3 field, where rules are still evolving, 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 such as Mankun Law Firm to obtain full-cycle support from model design to risk response.

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