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

91–100 of 137 posts

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

#91

Post by jamesaguilar »

jessaustin wrote: post #76
dragonwriter wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 (…

...there will be less, not more, that a lawyer can do for you. At this point in time, OP can take down the repo (but not the 115-and-counting forks thereof), or modify it (someone suggested removing keys issued by Snapchat), or not. How will this set of options change if Snapchat file suit? Of course one must respond to a suit, but couldn't one's response be "ok we've complied with all requests"? If you're telling me…

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.

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

#92

Post by TeMPOraL »

peterkelly wrote: post #66
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…

Forked from you. 162+.

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

#93

Post by tptacek »

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?

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

#94

Post by frasierman »

Just spitballing here, but couldn't you just remove the hardcoded URLs and let users paste in the Snapchat URL so they'd be breaking the TOS, not you?

Technically, it wouldn't be utilizing their API, it would just be a PHP library for accessing APIs that happen to use their exact API call structure.

I know it's a long shot, and it may not hold up, but I think it's better than just taking it down.

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

#95

Post by belorn »

PeterisP wrote: post #56
late2part wrote: post #8

A lot of times when you use a product, you're required to agree to an EULA wherein you promise/commit to not reverse engineer a product or its protocols. If you did use snapchat as a registered user, this issue could affect you negatively. Another alternative is to mail them back and ask them for clarification. Why do they consider it an infringement? The law clearly states the following: (2) No person shall manufact…

It depends on your location - in sane jurisdictions, EULAs aren't worth the paper they're not written on. But it looks like that USA is not one of them. At least for me any EULAs that aren't signed before purchase (i.e., all shrinkwrap or clickthrough "agreements") aren't binding unless I choose to - B2B sales with explicit signed contracts would be binding; or if I want to do something that by law requires permissio…

Law always depend on the local jurisdiction. You are spot on that observation.

EULA is regarded as a contract in "most" (or all?) jurisdictions, and as such, depend on contract law to define what is allow and what isn't. EULA's is also regulated under consumer protection laws. Since each state in the USA have slightly different kind of consumer protection and contract law, one would really need to dig down into the law books to decide if the EULA is at all legally binding in a specific state.

But I have one correction to mention. Copyright licenses are not viewed as contract in the USA. Copyright licenses like GPL are granted permissions, waiving the right to sue distributors under specific situation. If the distributor get sued for distributing GPL software, then it is she who must raise the license as protection. "I got right to distribute this copyrighted work, because I received this license who says I can". The license "terms" only specifies under what situation permission have been given.

In EU however, licenses are contract and under contract law. As such, the permission to distribute can be revoked if contract law has been violated.

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

#96

Post by icebraining »

kposehn wrote: post #37

Morally, I would take it down. It is all well and good to write these sorts of things as a demo, but distribution is something where I would defer to the actual owner of the API in question. After all, how many of us would want someone creating an unauthorized library to a private API that we don't wish to have public?

Personally, I think the idea of purposely trying to maintain private an API designed to be used by code running on others' computers to be morally dubious.

I would agree with your position if this was some internal service of theirs.

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

#97

Post by rhizome »

morganw wrote: post #85
rhizome wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which cases have found support here?

Chamberlain v. Skylink http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Chamberlain_Group,_Inc._v._... . 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…

So, no caselaw actually touches 1201(a)(1) in this way, contrary to GP's assertion?

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

#98

Post by icebraining »

drdaeman wrote: post #33

IMNAL, 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…

IANAL, but I don't think a DMCA takedown is required to sue the infringing party, just to sue the ISP that may happen to be distributing a copy without a valid license.

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

#99

Post by rhizome »

jamesaguilar wrote: post #91
jessaustin wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

...there will be less, not more, that a lawyer can do for you. At this point in time, OP can take down the repo (but not the 115-and-counting forks thereof), or modify it (someone suggested removing keys issued by Snapchat), or not. How will this set of options change if Snapchat file suit? Of course one must respond to a suit, but couldn't one's response be "ok we've complied with all requests"? If you're telling me…

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.

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

#100

Post by lucb1e »

dspillett wrote: post #77

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…

un-rot13 is encryption circumvention? Source?
Post reply on HN