101–110 of 137 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Snapchat files suit, all of the options that might have avoided a lawsuit are now off-limits. Assuming that's a non-empty set, a strict subset of the choices currently available will be available at that point in time.
Snapchat will not have all of the options available to them until they send a valid C&D.
But, I personally wouldn't worry about it. If they really felt strongly they would send something to GitHub asking to have your project removed. If GitHub takes it down that means they are either being douchey and covering their butts, or they believe the request has legal merit.
I would take it down, not because of ethics or legalisms, but because you'll lose technically. They're making it clear that they don't want interoperable implementations. All you're doing is poking them in the eye with a stick. You probably don't have the resources (especially given your lack of interest) to keep your implementation working; they certainly have the resources to break your implementation. Why bother?
If they shipped the app/service without a "force the user to update" feature, they would risk leaving thousands of users in the dark.
And if they did modify their protocol, it would probably get reverse-engineered again, either by the OP or somebody else.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Snapchat files suit, all of the options that might have avoided a lawsuit are now off-limits. Assuming that's a non-empty set, a strict subset of the choices currently available will be available at that point in time.
Snapchat will not have all of the options available to them until they send a valid C&D.
It _may_ indeed be illegal under the DMCA to distribute. Or it may be legal, as there are some exceptions for reverse engineering etc.
Nobody here knows. Heck, even a lawyer might not know, but a laywer will know your level of legal risk and possible expense.
Ignore 99% of the responses in this thread, particularly any that say "I think...", "It seems fair...", and so on. You're in a legal situation here, if you are worried, contact a lawyer.
I'm writing to ask... we consider.... Assuming the posted letter is complete, a lawyer can't really do anything at this point. The letter (or is it actually an email?) doesn't invoke any requirements one is bound by law to obey. One might even say that it's careful not to do so, so I suspect that even though the "Director of Operations" signed it, it was originally written by a lawyer. This would actually be a useful…
You do not need to wait until you are sued or prosecuted to get advice from a lawyer.
They say "we consider Snaphax to be an unlawful circumvention device under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)."
They are implying he would be subject to lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution if he keeps distributing the software.
How likely is that to happen? How risky is it for the guy? How expensive might the defense be, and how much pain might this be for a weekend project?
I'm not really sure. But you know what class of people are expert at answering questions like that? Lawyers.
But, sure, if the poster want to keep it up anyway cause you think it's bullshit and are willing to see what they do next, certainly that's another option. It's potentially a brave and commendable one.
But I wouldn't do it because a bunch of people on HN who don't know what they're talking about told me that since they didn't use some special magic words in the letter, there's "nothing a lawyer can do", what?
It very much depends where you are and what you can afford in legal fees. When you signed up you will have agreed not to do this sort of thing in the terms and conditions - whether that is legally enforceable or not could be expensive to prove either way. Though the worst they can do you for here is breach of contract. With regard to "copyright circumvention": un-rot13 has been classed as an encryption circumvention…
While the idea of getting the word out there that these people are idiots is amiable, it's not the best idea legally. Now they can prove that you saw their original email and probably have scumbag lawyers who can use this post in other ridiculous ways (claim it proves malicious intent, for instance... no idea what they'd actually do).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Snapchat files suit, all of the options that might have avoided a lawsuit are now off-limits. Assuming that's a non-empty set, a strict subset of the choices currently available will be available at that point in time.
Snapchat will not have all of the options available to them until they send a valid C&D.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat will not have all of the options available to them until they send a valid C&D.
I don't think that is true. Plenty of companies are sued without notice for patent infringement. It's not generally the case that you have to notify the parties to a suit before initiating it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"But preventing third-party implementations of protocols or APIs is so 90s." I think the impending 3Taps (padmapper.com) v/s Craigslist case[1] will shed more light on this. padmapper were using Craigslist data that is 'freely available' and Craigslist didn't like it. [1] http://www.dmlp.org/threats/craigslist-v-3taps
I don't think that's relevant at all. A "protocol or API" as the GP mentions exists independently of the entity which created it. PadMapper, on the other hand, is actively accessing Craigslist against their service's TOS.
Any access to or use of craigslist to design, develop, test, update, operate, modify, maintain, support, market, advertise, distribute or otherwise make available any program, application or service (including, without limitation, any device, technology, product, computer program, mobile device application, website, or mechanical or personal service) that enables or provides access to, use of, operation of or interoperation with craigslist (including, without limitation, to access content, post content, cross-post content, re-post content, respond or reply to content, verify content, transmit content, create accounts, verify accounts, use accounts, circumvent and/or automate technological security measures or restrictions, or flag content) is prohibited.
I don't believe they can (or perhaps "should be allowed to") stop people from accessing their site via http (which is a protocol or api). Either way, it feels the same to me; I think it's relevant.