I used Snaphax to make a website of mine,SnapSave.me! You did a great job. Please don't take Snaphax offline. There's no other library on the internet like it. I don't know what the legal ramifications are but your work is making a difference.
Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
121–130 of 137 posts
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#122Where's Snapchat? Don't they read HN? What do they have to say for themselves? Have they finally spoken with an attorney?
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#123Schaffer: "... we consider Snaphax to be unlawful circumvention device under ..." Lackner: Mr. Schaffer, are you a lawyer? Please elaborate on why you consider Snaphax to be unlawful circumvention. I will assess the merits of your argument and then make a decision. While people in this thread all give the customary knee-jerk "get a lawyer" response, consider that: 1. The request did not come from Snapchat's lawyers,…
Yes, you've got it exactly. I speculate that the reason lawyers aren't involved is lawyers cost money, and the Snapchat board has already decided that Schaffer flies off the handle at innocuous bullshit too often. That's why he's allowed to send out this special form letter, and not allowed to approve legal invoices.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#124IMNAL, but if they aren't filing off a DMCA notice (but asserting it's a DMCA violation), why care? I persume they can't file a lawsuit without filing DMCA takedown notice first? If so, when they'll file the notice, GitHub'll take it down (as they usually do). Then you may consider filing counter-notice (if you can afford legal action) or, I guess (IMNAL!) ignore the whole affair. Anyway, you'd better consult a lawye…
> IMNAL, but if they aren't filing off a DMCA notice (but asserting it's a DMCA violation), why care?
DMCA notices -- by which, presumably, you mean takedown notices -- are only required to a third-party that is otherwise within the DMCA safe harbor protecting hosts of allegedly-copyright-infringing user-submitted content to choose either to take the content down or forfeit the protection of the safe harbor. They have nothing to do with actions against direct violators of either the main body of copyright law or the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA.
> I persume they can't file a lawsuit without filing DMCA takedown notice first?
You presume incorrectly; even if the alleged violation was of the type to which a DMCA takedown was relevant, they can sue the offending party (though not a third-party host within the safe harbor) without a takedown notice.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#125Earlier quoted context omitted.
Snapchat will not have all of the options available to them until they send a valid C&D.
C&D's are usually courtesies to avoid prosecution, rather than legally required. (DMCA takedown notices have particular effect with regard to safe harbor, which -- because the DMCA is involved -- may be what you are thinking of, but this isn't a safe harbor issue; it would be if they were trying to get github to take it down, but that's not what is going on here.)
Which specific aspect of this package constitutes an "unlawful circumvention device"? If the Snaphax class instantiated a different low-level class from SnaphaxApi, that was written to a slightly different API, would it still circumvent? If so, why must the entire package be taken down? If the code here was used but pointed at a proxy, would the distribution of code itself still have limited commercial purpose and be designed or produced primarily for the purpose of circumvention? The actual USC section (Schaffer has the wrong subsub: it's (a)(2) (and maybe (b)(1)) not (a)(1) that governs "traffic in any... device") refers extensively to copyrighted works: what copyrighted works are referenced here? Do Snapchat claim copyright in their users' images? If not, what do they mean here?
Without specific answers to many of the foregoing questions, this message amounts to asking OP to forego all use and value of work that OP has personally performed, merely on Snapchat's say-so. So, actual meritorious C&D's require some actual work on the part of the sender. This letter took some knucklehead five minutes, so that's about what it's worth.
C&D's are usually courtesies to avoid...
...the expense of an actual lawsuit. In many cases a vague and overbroad (see above) message is mere bullying, attempting to imply threats that would be impossible to articulate or enforce. Papers filed in a court are held to a higher standard, and penalties are enforced. The fact that OP might be well-advised to retain counsel in response to this turd is an indictment of the USA legal system.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#126Earlier quoted context omitted.
Bunk. He spent 2 days on a hobby project with no hopes of ever making any money off of it. It makes no sense to spend time and money consulting a lawyer over this.
Then it also makes no sense to not comply with the request. "It was just a weekend project" is not a legal defense.
If I complied with every request like this, I wouldn't have made a single successful website. You shouldn't be so afraid to stand up for yourself. Entrepreneurs need to have thick skin and not buckle under every little bit of pressure.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#127Ignore 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.
Agreed, talk to an attorney.
Agreed, never hesitate to drop $10K on an attorney for any request like this, even if it bankrupts you. Better safe than sorry.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#128Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, talk to an attorney.
Agreed, never hesitate to drop $10K on an attorney for any request like this, even if it bankrupts you. Better safe than sorry.
What, really? $10k on an attorney for something like this? Seems a bit excessive... they haven't even got their lawyers involved yet.
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
Agreed, never hesitate to drop $10K on an attorney for any request like this, even if it bankrupts you. Better safe than sorry.
What, really? $10k on an attorney for something like this ? Seems a bit excessive... they haven't even got their lawyers involved yet.
That's only 20 hours of a good attorney's time, plus his/her expenses. One wouldn't want shoddy representation on such an important matter, right?
Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
What, really? $10k on an attorney for something like this ? Seems a bit excessive... they haven't even got their lawyers involved yet.
That's only 20 hours of a good attorney's time, plus his/her expenses. One wouldn't want shoddy representation on such an important matter, right?
I guess that's what I'm confused about.. No legal action has been taken (or even threat of legal action), so isn't that overkill at this point? Seems like something that would require a few hours of advice at most. Perhaps I'm vastly underestimating the legal ramifications here.