Understanding "Infringed Meaning" in Web3: Why Technology Is Not a Legal Shield

When the Hangzhou Internet Court ruled on the Fat Tiger Gets Vaccinated NFT case, it sent a clear message to the Web3 community: decentralization doesn’t erase legal accountability. Many developers, platform operators, and tool creators operate under a dangerous misconception: if we’re only building the technology and not directly facilitating infringement, we’re safe. But this ruling shattered that assumption. The infringed meaning extends far beyond stealing content—it encompasses anything that circumvents the systems protecting intellectual property, and technology providers cannot hide behind innovation as justification.

This case marks a watershed moment. Courts are now recognizing that the way intellectual property gets infringed meaning in the digital age has evolved, and the law must evolve with it. For anyone building in Web3, this is a critical wake-up call.

Beyond the Code: What “Infringed Meaning” Really Implies in Digital Ownership

The traditional understanding of copyright infringement is simple: someone copies and distributes protected content without permission. But in the digital age, infringement has become more sophisticated. What modern courts recognize is that infringed meaning often isn’t about the content itself—it’s about dismantling the locks that protect it.

Think of digital protection measures as a two-layer system. The first layer controls access: paywalls, membership walls, verification protocols that determine “who gets in.” The second layer controls usage: anti-copy watermarks, DRM systems, encryption that restricts “what you can do inside.”

Circumventing these protections can happen in two ways. Direct circumvention is when someone personally cracks the lock—creating their own decryption key. Indirect circumvention is arguably more dangerous: providing the tools that allow thousands of others to break through. A single cracking tool transforms isolated infringement into industrialized piracy, which is precisely why laws treat it with such severity.

This is where the infringed meaning becomes legally binding. It’s not just about unauthorized copying anymore. The law now recognizes that enabling infringement through technical circumvention is itself a crime, separate from the actual content theft that follows.

The Web3 Trap: When Blockchain Meets Copyright Circumvention

In Web3, this circumvention minefield becomes infinitely more complex. The targets have evolved dramatically. We’re no longer talking about cracking individual software. Now a developer might create a script that bypasses a blockchain’s copyright verification protocol—the system that authenticates whether an AI model was trained on authorized data, for instance. Or they might write code that manipulates the smart contract logic controlling NFT access permissions.

The actors involved have multiplied across borders and anonymity layers. Consider a realistic scenario: a developer open-sources a bypass script on GitHub, a DAO votes to fund the project, and within hours, thousands of anonymous nodes worldwide execute the code automatically. Who is responsible? The developer? The DAO members? The node operators? Traditional jurisdictional boundaries collapse.

But perhaps most troubling: the permanence. On traditional web infrastructure, infringing content can be taken down, its impact mitigated. A court can order “cease and desist” and “eliminate evidence.” But on Web3, once a circumvention tool is deployed to a blockchain, enforcing such orders becomes technically impossible. The state of infringement is immutable, recorded forever, and the damage compounds irreversibly.

Yet Chinese courts have already drawn clear red lines. According to the Supreme People’s Court and Supreme People’s Procuratorate’s joint interpretation on intellectual property criminal cases, providing tools or services specifically designed to circumvent copyright protection mechanisms can constitute a criminal offense if the circumstances are sufficiently serious. This isn’t a gray area anymore.

From Passive Exemption to Active Governance: Your Compliance Roadmap

The days of claiming “technological neutrality” as a legal shield are over. Projects and platforms with meaningful control over their infrastructure now face an expectation of active copyright governance proportional to their capabilities. This shift from passive exemption-seeking to active compliance systems represents the only viable path forward.

Compliance architecture must be built into the foundation, not bolted on afterward. For platforms and projects in Web3, this means moving beyond reactive legal defense. Instead, embed compliance into your token model design and technical solution selection phase. This is when you can eliminate circumvention risks at their source, rather than discovering them mid-development.

Practical compliance steps include establishing smart contract audit mechanisms specifically designed to catch circumvention vectors, implementing high-risk content monitoring systems, and creating decision-making frameworks that align technical innovation with legal boundaries. These aren’t bureaucratic obstacles—they’re essential infrastructure for sustainable projects.

Professional legal teams that understand both blockchain technology and intellectual property law should be involved early and continuously. If you’re operating a platform with substantial user control or developing tools used by others, this investment isn’t optional. The alternative is becoming a test case for enforcement, which companies like Mankun Lawyers increasingly see happening across the Web3 space.

The Path Forward: Embedding Compliance Into Web3’s DNA

Understanding what infringed meaning truly encompasses in Web3—and more importantly, how your project might inadvertently enable it—requires forward-looking architecture and sustained professional support. The regulatory environment remains dynamic, but the foundational principle is now clear: technology providers cannot distance themselves from how their tools are used.

Projects that embed compliance thinking into their DNA from day one aren’t just reducing legal risk. They’re building credibility, attracting institutional partners, and positioning themselves as serious contributors to Web3’s long-term viability. The cost of compliance is minimal compared to the cost of becoming a cautionary tale. The time to act is now.