Web3 programmers urgently self-check: Technical circumvention infringement has been criminalized

Original author: Lawyer Li Xinyi, Mankun Blockchain

Introduction

A ruling by the Hangzhou Internet Court clearly demonstrates that the “Fat Tiger Vaccination” NFT infringement case: Decentralization does not mean no responsibility; behind the technology, there are clear legal boundaries.

Many believe that since they are only developing technology, building platforms, or providing tools, and not directly involved 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.”

• What is it?
• How can ordinary people avoid it?
• 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 is not direct content theft, 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 having a master key that makes large-scale infringement easier.

These “locks” mainly include two types:

• Access controls: such as paywalls, membership verification, which determine whether you “can enter”;
• Copyright protections: such as anti-copy watermarks, DRM systems, which restrict what you can do “after entering.”

Evasion behaviors are also divided into two categories:

• Direct evasion: hacking yourself, 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” infringement: a single hacking tool can be used by thousands, seriously disrupting copyright order and the creative ecosystem.

The “Evasion Trap” in Web3: When Technology Bypasses Meet Immutable Blockchains

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

• The objects of evasion are broader: previously, it was cracking specific software; now, it could be attacking a blockchain protocol that verifies AI training data copyrights, or tampering with a smart contract that controls NFT access permissions. The lock becomes a virtual consensus.
• The actors involved are more complex: for example, a developer opens-source scripts that bypass a platform’s technical protections on GitHub, receives funding via DAO, and is automatically executed by anonymous nodes worldwide. The involved entities have transcended regional boundaries—developers, voting DAOs, all executing nodes…
• Infringement consequences are recorded: in traditional networks, infringing content can be deleted. But in Web3, legal orders like “stop infringement” or “eliminate impact” are difficult to enforce technically. The infringement status may be permanently locked, and the rights holder’s damages continue without reversal.
• 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 Infringing Intellectual Property Rights,” providing tools or services specifically used to bypass copyright protections, in serious circumstances, can constitute a criminal offense. If project parties cross this line, they will face legal sanctions directly; platforms cannot claim “technological neutrality” to exempt themselves and must bear initial review obligations, or they may be held jointly liable.

Building a Compliance Guide: How to Safely Navigate the Web3 Era

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

• From “passive exemption” to “active governance”: For platforms with substantial control, lawyers’ roles have shifted from seeking “safe harbor” protections to helping establish and implement copyright governance systems that match their capabilities, turning legal obligations into actionable monitoring lists, such as smart contract audits and high-risk content monitoring.
• Compliance must “intervene early”: Legal advice should be incorporated at early stages like tokenomics design and technical solution selection to fundamentally prevent evasion-related infringement risks. If issues already exist, professional defenses are needed to clarify the boundaries between “technological exploration” and “malicious illegal acts.”
• Professional support is a long-term guarantee: 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 professionals like Mankun Lawyers for full-cycle support from model design to risk response.

Only by embedding compliance awareness into the project’s DNA and adopting forward-looking architecture to address potential risks can we achieve greater progress in balancing innovation and security.