I covered that in my comment. It’s likely the code violates § 1201 but I doubt the post does. And linking to infringing content is not legally the same thing as publishing it.

2600 got enjoined from linking to DeCSS and that got upheld on appeal, on the basis that linking violated the DMCA's anti-trafficking provisions. From the district court case:

> Defendants then linked their site to those "mirror" sites, after first checking to ensure that the mirror sites in fact were posting DeCSS or something that looked like it, and proclaimed on their own site that DeCSS could be had by clicking on the hyperlinks on defendants' site. By doing so, they offered, provided or otherwise trafficked in DeCSS.

The appeal was mostly about whether the DMCA and/or the specific injunction in question violated the First Amendment, and the court found that it didn't.

(Universal City Studios vs. Reimerdes at the district court level, Universal City Studios v. Corley at the circuit)

Where’s the link? Did he remove it, or am I missing some clever obfuscation of his own? (I’m on mobile so maybe the link isn’t obvious.)

Yes, looks like it's been removed. It used to be at https://github.com/PixelMelt/amazon_book_downloader

Aww that’s disappointing. Fun project.

Is this the code? https://github.com/gudvardur/amazon_book_downloader

Yes. FWIW, as of a few minutes ago when I cloned this one, all the non-git files have the same hashes as the copy of the original I cloned when it was still up.

(to clarify, I wasn't talking about any git-specific hashes, just regular sha2/blake2b hashes of python, json, and font files. However, the two sha1 commit hashes in the git history match as well.)

This is a weird thing with how GitHub forks work. All the objects within a fork network are stored within a global namespace, so you can change the repository name in the URL and find objects that appear to belong to one repository despite being unique to a fork.

These commit sha's do not match the original:

4526863 - Initial commit

Where are you getting that hex prefix from?

Sorry, I don't comment very often and not trolling. I had GitHub open to the repo on my phone and seeing that it had been taken down grabbed a screenshot of the page https://imgur.com/a/IzUA8mP

The HN thread began on Oct 16 at 20:22 Z. If you visited that github page instantly and took that screenshot instantly, even accounting for 21 hours due to rounding, the commit in that screenshot had to be after Oct 15 23:22.

The repo as I and many other people cloned it has the first commit ("first commit", not "initial commit") at Oct 12 23:20 Z, and the "done" commit at Oct 15 19:37 Z.

A likely explanation is that pixelmelt squashed both commits at or after they put up the blog post, but didn't force-push the rewritten history to github until it hit HN and blew up.

That's plausible. In the version of the repository I saw there was a GPL license file. The new repository does not have that.

I think that the link is already gone