Resolve Studio Arch AUR download

TLDR: Is Blackmagic ok with an Arch Linux package installer downloading the DaVinci Resolve Studio zip on behalf of the user? Would Blackmagic require any prompts to the user, such as links and/or acceptance to license agreements and such, before downloading?

With the release of DaVinci Resolve Studio 19.1.3, the Arch AUR package for Davinci Resolve Studio, no longer downloads the install zip for Linux. Instead it fails with a "Bad file:// URL" error.

I understand the AUR package is outside of Blackmagic's scope of support, I'm not seeking a fix for that. I'm seeking advice for how the package could satisfy both Blackmagic's download requirements, and Arch end-user ease of install.

The AUR package maintainer has announced that the package will no longer automatically download the DaVinci Resolve Studio zip, and users are now expected to manually download it and assemble the packages base components themselves, because:

...bypassing the required information from the upstream URL is not allowed in an automated way.

Firstly, is it possible to confirm this claim is indeed true? It is certainly possible to provide a direct download link, so that's not really in question.

I maintain another AUR package that is similarly for closed source software and requires users to agree to terms before downloading. With the blessing of the team behind that software, I was able to incorporate links to a license agreement and a yes/no style prompt for Arch users before the package would download and install.

Are there reasonable steps the package maintainer could implement, so a guided install of DaVinci Resolve Studio remains possible?

EDIT 25/03/2025: After communicating with the package maintainer, and some testing was done on the viability of a direct download, we were able to confirm two things:

1. Direct download without attempting to circumvent Blackmagicdesign's download protections was not a viable solution.
2. Blackmagicdesign has implemented time-limited protections on their download links, answering the question presented in this post.

Based on the fact that the current maintainer has already replied to two comments (mine included) in the AUR that both asked where they got the information that providing a direct download is forbidden by Blackmagic and dodged the question both times, I suspect that this is more an assumption (or laziness) on the maintainer's side. I would be happy to be proven wrong though.