81–90 of 137 posts
While this does technically violate 17 U.S.C. section 1201 (a)(1) according to other case law, I feel the responsibility is upon Snapchat, Inc. to make sufficient attempts to prevent such subversion. RE is always a sticky area, and because it appears you needed to pull some form of cryptographic keys out of that process, you are likely in an unenforceable region of a DMCA violation.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
A private (that is, not published) API Key sure sounds like a protection measure to me.
First, I'd ask myself how much I care about this. Do I care enough to pay legal fees to defend myself if Snapchat decides to come after me? If yes, consult an attorney and find out what you're looking at. Ignore any legal advice you get here. Unless it's from an actual attorney on your payroll (and attorneys you aren't paying won't give you much beyond an initial consultation)
If no, you've got an easy choice: take it down.
> Please confirm that it has been removed by end of day Monday, July 22nd.
Essentially, they're giving the poster less than a full day to act on this. That strikes me as a high pressure tactic on Snapchat's part designed to get the poster into pulling that library before taking the time to consult with an attorney.
130 forks and counting.
While this does technically violate 17 U.S.C. section 1201 (a)(1) according to other case law, I feel the responsibility is upon Snapchat, Inc. to make sufficient attempts to prevent such subversion. RE is always a sticky area, and because it appears you needed to pull some form of cryptographic keys out of that process, you are likely in an unenforceable region of a DMCA violation.
Which cases have found support here?
actually went the other way, but Chamberlain's argument was an interesting one: the copyright-able "work" was the code that ran in the garage door opener that actually opened the door. That code was protected against running (access in 1201 a) by the remote's code system.
The judge got access to the code v. access to the customer's garage mixed up and ruled against Chamberlain because it seemed silly. The DMCA is that silly, though and extreme unintended effects cases like this are the way to get support to re-write digital-age copyright.
Here, there are two access controls (control over access to running (accessing) copyrighted code on Snapchat's server) in question: the API key and use of that key. Is supplying one part of a circumvention device (the library) without the other (the API key) still a 1201 a violation? Patent law has provisions against "independent" manufacturers supplying parts that together violate a patent, but alone do not. MGM v. Grokster already tried to bring some of that reasoning into copyright (case) law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inducement_rule
The less interesting, but more dangerous to the O.P. question is the T.O.S. violation. Pure reverse engineering is done without access to documentation about the thing reversed. Purest has two teams: one to analyze and write an expression-independent specification and another to implement that spec.
If you reverse engineered rather than copied from Docs or header files I don't believe it should be copyright infringement. Note that the Google Oracle case currently being appealed seems wrong to me as I think copyright on complicated API's are reasonable (many disagree with me) although fair use and antitrust arguments should in many cases allow reimplementation. Anyway in statutory terms I don't see a problem. However...
It is likely that you agreed to Snapchat's terms of service at some point and it is also likely (I haven't read them) that they contain clauses forbidding permission to reverse engineer and/or access the service without using official clients. This opens up possibilities for breach of contract legal action and more worryingly computer crimes prosecution for unauthorized access. This conversion of minor contract breaches into computer hacking crimes is horrible law but it seems to be current reality. Be careful.
I don't know if you are in a better or worse position if you use the software without agreeing to the terms and conditions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ;)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Save the lecturing, you don't know if he needs legal advice. Maybe he has already gotten legal advice.
The quote below is decidedly "legal" in nature. The meta-question of whether the author is interested in moral guidance or legal advice is immaterial, as the framework within which Snapchat is operating is legal. > I am under the impression that reverse engineering is still protected under fair use doctrines. Is this the case? How should I respond, if at all? Speaking as someone who has been involved in an arduous ci…
"There's no way they can sue you for that."
"No way a judge will even allow this case."
"This case will be dismissed after the first hearing."
When someone sends you a letter like this, the first decision you have to make is "how much is this thing worth to me". Once you've decided that it's worth fighting for, your best counsel will come from a lawyer, who can help you determine the thing that really matters: how much it's going to cost you.
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.
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.