WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition • Hacker News Board

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#21

Post by Jtsummers » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:44 PM UTC

erichurkman wrote: post #11

cbhl wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe libraries/clients would impact WhatsApp's ability to rework their backend to use FB infra now that they've been acquired?

But they are third party libraries; WhatsApp has no obligation for backwards compatibility.

Yes, but... With a sufficiently widespread third party library they risk a backlash with their userbase. Social networks depend so much on the network effect to bring in users that cutting out a large chunk of users all at once because the protocol changed could cause more users to drop out.

Thinking about it, I wonder how much AIM and MSN Messenger's fights against third party clients messed up their user bases.

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#22

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:47 PM UTC

balladeer wrote: post #12

FiloSottile wrote: post #7

With the poor, let's say terrible, security posture WhatsApp always had, this is really not the way to communicate the message that they care and want their software to be scrutinized. Open implementations are a great help to any reverse engineer trying to figure out the mess that is their protocol. This is exactly what triggers full disclosure.

You know what was pathetic? With all its security and authentication loopholes people still used it. I gave it up for time but friends still won't listen and then I had to come back. Now, Facebook is sth I can't tolerate. At least earlier I didn't run the visible risk of my very intimate messages falling into advertisers' hands.

[deleted]

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#23

Post by captainmuon » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:49 PM UTC

skywhopper wrote: post #9

jotato wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From what I understand, companies _have_ to do stuff like this. By not protecting a copyright or trademark you are, in effect, giving it up. Calling your API "node.whatsapp" is using their trademark, and they do have the right and responsibility to protect it. It doesn't make them wrong; just a jerk :)

They have to do it to protect trademark, but not copyright. I'm not sure there's any real copyright claim to be made here. The DMCA does have provisions against reverse engineering etc. It's not clear to me from this notice exactly what's believed to be infringing other than the Trademark claim, which is pretty straightforward (and easily gotten around).

I always wondered, if a company doesn't really want to protect their trademark (too much hassle), but has to, can't they just grant people a (temporary, revokable) right to use the trademark pro forma?

I remember seeing a company (something Linux-related) that had a very strict trademark policy, and they did sue people who used their logo or their name, or event something different but similar. But their web site had a form where you could just enter your email address and name, and it would say oki-doki, you may now use our trademark as you like, until we say otherwise.

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#24

Post by comex » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:50 PM UTC

IANAL, but these claims can't last. To the extent those projects are using WhatsApp's trademarks or copyrighted logos, they can stop infringing by renaming and removing the logos. There might be a "hacking" claim against users who use that software to access WhatsApp's servers, but not copyright (assuming WhatsApp doesn't claim copyright over messages sent through the aervice), of unknown validity, and probably not enforceable against a site which merely hosts code to do so. I think.

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#25

Post by comex » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #19

That is not a DMCA takedown request. It is merely a takedown request. The person to whom it was sent has no obligation to comply.

The copyright part is.

Also, I wouldn't describe the DMCA safe harbor as an obligation to comply. More of a benefit to complying that doesn't apply to trademark (with the default in both cases being susceptibility to hypothetical lawsuits).

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#26

Post by drakethes » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 4:58 PM UTC

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #19

That is not a DMCA takedown request. It is merely a takedown request. The person to whom it was sent has no obligation to comply.

If you visit any of the links in the request they state "Repository unavailable due to DMCA takedown"

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#27

Post by tapsboy » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 5:09 PM UTC

tsaoutourpants wrote: post #19

That is not a DMCA takedown request. It is merely a takedown request. The person to whom it was sent has no obligation to comply.

It is a markdown version posted by github for the original DMCA takedown notice sent to github

https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/README.markdown

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#28

Post by chenster » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 5:10 PM UTC

This is the HTML version: https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2014-02-12-WhatsA...

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#29

Post by WizzleKake » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 5:16 PM UTC

It looks like Github has pulled a bunch of the repos, including the ones that don't even have "WhatsApp" in their names.

Is this because they had something like "compatible with WhatsApp" in their descriptions?

If I were repository owners and/or paying customer of Github, I would not be OK with this.

Re: WhatsApp issued takedown against alternative clients a week before acquisition

#30

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Feb 20, 2014, 5:29 PM UTC

Jtsummers wrote: post #21

erichurkman wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But they are third party libraries; WhatsApp has no obligation for backwards compatibility.

Yes, but... With a sufficiently widespread third party library they risk a backlash with their userbase. Social networks depend so much on the network effect to bring in users that cutting out a large chunk of users all at once because the protocol changed could cause more users to drop out. Thinking about it, I wonder how much AIM and MSN Messenger's fights against third party clients messed up their user bases.

Their userbase uses the Whatsapp app that comes bundled with their phones on many intl carriers. I don't think they care about the 0.0001% of their userbase that uses third party clients.