Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

news.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 137 posts

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#61

Post by cjbprime »

Plutor wrote: post #19
cjbprime wrote: post #13

There's no "fair use" defense because they aren't asserting a plain copyright violation -- they're asserting that using their API is a DMCA violation. I'm not a lawyer, but this seems laugh-out-loud crazy of them, and I'm not aware of anyone trying that claim before. So if you want to resist, you could start there: by finding out (possibly by asking a lawyer to talk to them) how they think your tool is acting to "des…

It may be dumb, but it's not laugh-out-loud crazy. In fact, it's specifically one of the things that the DMCA does. Here's a whole ton of information about the law: http://chillingeffects.org/reverse/faq.cgi And here's an article from the EFF with a few citations of cases where DMCA article 1201 has been used: https://www.eff.org/es/wp/unintended-consequences-under-dmca

> In fact, it's specifically one of the things that the DMCA does.

Well, the specific thing the DMCA does is to stop circumvention of an "effective technological protection measure". The crazy thing here is that there is no such measure: no use of encryption or scrambling -- or even passwords! -- that I can see, just simply using a network service's exposed command set. That makes it different to most (if not all) of the case law your link mentions.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#62

Post by Splendor »

K0nserv wrote: post #50
Splendor wrote: post #4

Whatever you decide to do, don't make posts like this that could potentially be used against you.

Just how can this post be used against him?

Simple things like being able to prove that OP received the request can be useful to an attorney.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#63

Post by jessaustin »

untog wrote: post #5

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 form letter for people who have their underpants on a bit too tight: even if they send it five times a month, it doesn't create any sort of SLAPP liability or anything else that will damage Snapchat in a legal sense. Of course, giving someone 12 hours to comply with anything looks like amateur hour. tlack isn't the only party reluctant to run up billable hours.

IANAL. If I were, I would recommend you start paying me or one of my colleagues to talk with you immediately.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#65

Post by bas »

peterkelly wrote: post #28

I've just forked it on Github, as have 25 others (as I write this). As with file formats, the notion that network protocols & APIs should ever be granted any type of protection and that no-one other than the creators should be able to write software that conforms to these protocols is ridiculous. Snapchat, in my view, have every right to restrict who uses their service and in what manner - via standard mechanisms lik…

forked. 80+

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#66

Post by peterkelly »

peterkelly wrote: post #28

I've just forked it on Github, as have 25 others (as I write this). As with file formats, the notion that network protocols & APIs should ever be granted any type of protection and that no-one other than the creators should be able to write software that conforms to these protocols is ridiculous. Snapchat, in my view, have every right to restrict who uses their service and in what manner - via standard mechanisms lik…

I've actually amended my fork now to remove the API keys, adding the following instructions:

  /* Instructions for usage:
     1. Replace YOUR_SECRET_KEY and YOUR_STATIC_TOKEN in the code below with
        the values you have to access the service.
     2. Fill in SERVICE_URL with the appropriate endpoint. */
Not that it's going to stop anyone from going to any of the other forks or retrieving the previous revision of the file, but at least I've now only got up what I believe to be genuinely acceptable.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#67

Post by dragonwriter »

jessaustin wrote: post #63
untog wrote: post #5

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…

> Assuming the posted letter is complete, a lawyer can't really do anything at this point.

A lawyer can analyze the facts of what you have done, and provide you with advice as to whether it is likely to be found to be an anti-circumvention device under the cited section of the DMCA and, if so, what the likely consequences of that are and what steps you can take to mitigate any exposure you might have in that regard (including, if there are any, steps short of taking down the existing offering.)

Of course, you could wait to see if they actually file a suit rather than having a lawyer look at the C&D, but if you do that, then there will be less, not more, that a lawyer can do for you.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#68

Post by ansimionescu »

peterkelly wrote: post #28

I've just forked it on Github, as have 25 others (as I write this). As with file formats, the notion that network protocols & APIs should ever be granted any type of protection and that no-one other than the creators should be able to write software that conforms to these protocols is ridiculous. Snapchat, in my view, have every right to restrict who uses their service and in what manner - via standard mechanisms lik…

Forked - at least startups should know how to behave. Truly shameful

https://twitter.com/ansimionescu/status/359361709904891904

Edit: Why not use some of these https://www.google.com/search?q=pro+bono+lawyer+advice

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#69

Post by gknoy »

venomsnake wrote: post #17

I hate to play devil's advocate here (especially since I already have a post here) but I had a thought. For Snapchat some of the biggest selling points are the self destruct abilities of the media sent. So an unauthorized client puts a stake trough the heart of that claim (and the company). I see why they may be worried, but I think that they should have communicated their concerns more clearly and pleading, and not…

If they rely on the client to determine when things are deleted from their service, they're doing something wrong. Never trust the client software! The only thing a rogue client should be able to do is surreptitiously send a copy of your pictures Somewhere Else (for storage). All the pictures sent to Snapchat should get deleted on schedule, regardless of who or what sent the pictures.

Re: Ask HN: Take down my reverse-engineered Snapchat lib because they asked?

#70

Post by peterkelly »

ansimionescu wrote: post #68
peterkelly wrote: post #28

I've just forked it on Github, as have 25 others (as I write this). As with file formats, the notion that network protocols & APIs should ever be granted any type of protection and that no-one other than the creators should be able to write software that conforms to these protocols is ridiculous. Snapchat, in my view, have every right to restrict who uses their service and in what manner - via standard mechanisms lik…

Forked - at least startups should know how to behave. Truly shameful https://twitter.com/ansimionescu/status/359361709904891904 Edit: Why not use some of these https://www.google.com/search?q=pro+bono+lawyer+advice

It always amazes me how often this lesson is taught and how often people fail to learn from it ;)
Post reply on HN