Web3 programmers urgently self-check: Technical circumvention copyright infringement has become a criminal offense

Written by: Li Xinyi

A ruling by the Hangzhou Internet Court clearly demonstrates that “Panghu Vaccination” NFT infringement case: decentralization does not mean no responsibility. Behind technology, there are still clear legal boundaries.

Many believe that since they only develop technology, build platforms, or provide tools, and do not directly participate in infringement, they should be safe. But this ruling explicitly states: 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 Evasion of Copyright Infringement.”

What is it?

How can ordinary people avoid it?

And how should we find a balance between innovation and compliance?

Technological Evasion of Infringement: The Deadly Shortcut to Bypass “Digital Locks”

In the Web3 and digital creation fields, there is a form of infringement often underestimated: it does not involve directly stealing content but bypassing protections like “digital locks” on content, such as cracking encryption, tampering with licensing agreements, or providing hacking tools. Although these behaviors seem indirect, they are actually more harmful—like 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.”

Evasion behaviors are also divided into two categories:

Direct Evasion: hacking or cracking oneself, equivalent to “making your own key”;

Indirect Evasion: creating or providing hacking tools, akin to “opening a master key factory.”

The reason laws strictly crack down on such behaviors is because they enable “mass production” of infringement: a single hacking tool can be used by thousands of people, severely damaging copyright order and the creative ecosystem.

Web3’s “Evasion Minefield”: When Technology Bypasses Meet Immutable Blockchains

After understanding the basic concepts, let’s look at how they are distorted in the Web3 context.

Evasion targets are broader: previously, it was cracking a specific software; now, it could be attacking a blockchain protocol that verifies AI training data copyrights or tampering with smart contract logic that determines NFT access permissions. The lock becomes a virtual consensus.

The actors involved are more complex: for example, a developer open-sources a script that bypasses a platform’s technical protections on GitHub, receives funding through a DAO, and is automatically executed by anonymous nodes worldwide. The involved entities have transcended regional boundaries—developers, DAO voting bodies, all execution nodes…

Infringement consequences are recorded: on traditional networks, infringing content can be deleted. But in Web3, common legal orders like “stop infringement” or “eliminate impact” become technically difficult to enforce. The infringement state may be permanently locked, and the rights holder’s damages continue to accrue, with no way to reverse.

The law has already drawn 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 Infringing Intellectual Property Rights,” providing tools or services specifically used to bypass copyright protections, if serious, can constitute a criminal offense. Project parties that cross this line will face legal sanctions directly; platforms cannot claim “technological neutrality” as an exemption and must bear initial review obligations, or they may be held jointly liable.

Building a Compliance Guide: How to Safely Navigate Web3

In the face of legal risks brought by technological evasion, compliance is no longer optional but a “lifeline” for the survival and development of Web3 projects. True compliance should be a collaborative effort among law, technology, and community governance:

From “Passive Exemption” to “Proactive Governance”: For platforms with substantial control, lawyers’ roles have shifted from seeking “safe harbors” to helping establish copyright governance systems aligned with their capabilities, transforming legal obligations into actionable monitoring checklists, such as smart contract audits and high-risk content monitoring.

Compliance must “intervene early”: legal advice should be incorporated at early stages like token model design and technical solution selection to fundamentally prevent evasion-related infringement risks. If issues have already arisen, professional defenses are needed to clarify the boundaries between “technological exploration” and “malicious illegal acts.”

Professional support is a long-term safeguard: in the evolving Web3 landscape, compliance construction requires 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 full-cycle support from model design to risk response.

Only by embedding compliance awareness into the project DNA and adopting forward-looking architecture to address potential risks can we achieve a sustainable balance between innovation and security.