5 ms·

What benefit do you think it would give others? It looks like they're pretty clearly and understandably asserting their rights. Are you making their API docs

What benefit do you think it would give others? It looks like they're pretty clearly and understandably asserting their rights. Are you making their API docs publicly accessible?

shawn 8y ago
All other arguments aside, I’m uncomfortable with a world in which developers are bullied and intimidated by large corporations over nothing. In this case, it’s 3 month old api docs distributed to myself, which may be absurd enough to possibly make a stand over. The central issue appears to be the idea that in order to defend against anyone, they have to defend against everyone. And in cases like this, I’m not sure that’s to the public benefit.
- VectorLock 8y ago
  People in that comment thread described it more eloquently and precisely than I could but it really comes down to "use it or lose it." Would it have been _nice_ for them to send you a politely worded message like "oh hey soo could you take down our docs kthx!" but it lacks the legal precision to defend their copyrights. Lawyer are, unfortunately, seldom paid to be nice.
  - shawn 8y ago
    Nah, I don’t blame the formality. What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete. What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them. Is there no way to disobey in a productive way? Or is our only choice to agree to being bullied into submission for pointless reasons?
    - VectorLock 8y ago
      Sure go ahead if it makes you feel better. I appreciate the whole "information wants to be free, man!" mindset.
    - bandushrew 8y ago
      I mean, as soon as those docs are out of date, which will happen naturally and probably pretty quickly, you will be providing access to out of date/wrong documentation....and that will hurt the developer directly. Just let them be the source of truth for documentation about the SDK. Honestly, its best for everyone concerned.
    - bunderbunder 8y ago
      > What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete. I doubt it. More likely, it will make it easier to get yourself into hot water. Committing a tort (in this case, violating the terms of a license agreement) is one thing, and, while lawyers might word their comments strongly, they're leaving you a very easy out here. Committing a tort that can't be undone, but doing it on some sort of indelible public record, is probably just ensuring that you will get dragged into expensive legal proceedings. The current law still says that they have to defend their copyright in order to keep their copyright, so you won't really have left them with any other choice.
      - nl 8y ago
        While I agree with your post, it isn’t true that they have to defend copyright to keep it. That is trademarks, which is a completely different form of IP protection.
    - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
      You mean like a torrent file?
    - nl 8y ago
      You realise that this post right here will be used as evidence of your intent to keep doing this, right? You are getting no support for your position (albeit some sympathy) and seem intent on digging a bigger hole for yourself. Yes, they will take you to court, yes will lose, yes they may impose penalties, and yes if you keep posting things like this those penalties could potentially include court enforceable bans from the use of IPFS. Good luck.
      - shawn 8y ago
        I do. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that the old way of thinking has apparently died out. At no point have I been more likely to convert to a free software zealot. I'll have to rethink my stance going forward on pretty much everything I do. Anyway, thank you to everyone for providing thoughts and comments. This was most helpful.
        detaro 8y ago
        You're in a situation where you are going to loose from a legal perspective, and (IMHO) nothing about your case makes it a particular interesting one to publicly demonstrate injustice or problems with how copyright works, which is why making a stand out of it looks like a waste of time and money. If your goal is to widely/permanently make something accessible that the rightsholder doesn't want you to share, posting it under a real identity on a platform that'll enforce copyright really isn't the way to go.
        ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > At no point have I been more likely to convert to a free software zealot. Free Software doesn't mean "take other people's non-free work and do whatever you want with it". If you believe FOSS advocates will have any more sympathy for you, you're in for a rude awakening.
        BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
        Can confirm, as a FOSS developer and advocate with zero tolerance for the kind of petulant disregard for the ethics of sharing and consent being displayed by op.
    - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 8y ago
      > What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? If your name is still attached you will still get these letters. Because they will continue to try and show they are protecting their IP. > As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them. Then that would be your IP which you'd be free to distribute. You won't receive the same letter again, but you may be breaking an NDA and the terms of which may apply. Why do you think that ipfs and/or blockchain is going to change how copying IP works?
- pwinnski 8y ago
  To distribute docs to yourself, you download them or store them on "cloud" resources available to yourself. You are distributing the docs to any and all. The fact that nobody has taken you up on your offer is irrelevant.

What benefit do you think it would give others? It looks like they're pretty clearly and understandably asserting their rights. Are you making their API docs publicly accessible?

shawn 8y ago

All other arguments aside, I’m uncomfortable with a world in which developers are bullied and intimidated by large corporations over nothing. In this case, it’s 3 month old api docs distributed to myself, which may be absurd enough to possibly make a stand over. The central issue appears to be the idea that in order to defend against anyone, they have to defend against everyone. And in cases like this, I’m not sure that’s to the public benefit.

VectorLock 8y ago
People in that comment thread described it more eloquently and precisely than I could but it really comes down to "use it or lose it." Would it have been _nice_ for them to send you a politely worded message like "oh hey soo could you take down our docs kthx!" but it lacks the legal precision to defend their copyrights. Lawyer are, unfortunately, seldom paid to be nice.
- shawn 8y ago
  Nah, I don’t blame the formality. What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete. What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them. Is there no way to disobey in a productive way? Or is our only choice to agree to being bullied into submission for pointless reasons?
  - VectorLock 8y ago
    Sure go ahead if it makes you feel better. I appreciate the whole "information wants to be free, man!" mindset.
  - bandushrew 8y ago
    I mean, as soon as those docs are out of date, which will happen naturally and probably pretty quickly, you will be providing access to out of date/wrong documentation....and that will hurt the developer directly. Just let them be the source of truth for documentation about the SDK. Honestly, its best for everyone concerned.
  - bunderbunder 8y ago
    > What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete. I doubt it. More likely, it will make it easier to get yourself into hot water. Committing a tort (in this case, violating the terms of a license agreement) is one thing, and, while lawyers might word their comments strongly, they're leaving you a very easy out here. Committing a tort that can't be undone, but doing it on some sort of indelible public record, is probably just ensuring that you will get dragged into expensive legal proceedings. The current law still says that they have to defend their copyright in order to keep their copyright, so you won't really have left them with any other choice.
    - nl 8y ago
      While I agree with your post, it isn’t true that they have to defend copyright to keep it. That is trademarks, which is a completely different form of IP protection.
  - TheSoftwareGuy 8y ago
    You mean like a torrent file?
  - nl 8y ago
    You realise that this post right here will be used as evidence of your intent to keep doing this, right? You are getting no support for your position (albeit some sympathy) and seem intent on digging a bigger hole for yourself. Yes, they will take you to court, yes will lose, yes they may impose penalties, and yes if you keep posting things like this those penalties could potentially include court enforceable bans from the use of IPFS. Good luck.
    - shawn 8y ago
      I do. Honestly, I'm a bit surprised that the old way of thinking has apparently died out. At no point have I been more likely to convert to a free software zealot. I'll have to rethink my stance going forward on pretty much everything I do. Anyway, thank you to everyone for providing thoughts and comments. This was most helpful.
      - detaro 8y ago
        You're in a situation where you are going to loose from a legal perspective, and (IMHO) nothing about your case makes it a particular interesting one to publicly demonstrate injustice or problems with how copyright works, which is why making a stand out of it looks like a waste of time and money. If your goal is to widely/permanently make something accessible that the rightsholder doesn't want you to share, posting it under a real identity on a platform that'll enforce copyright really isn't the way to go.
      - ThrowawayR2 8y ago
        > At no point have I been more likely to convert to a free software zealot. Free Software doesn't mean "take other people's non-free work and do whatever you want with it". If you believe FOSS advocates will have any more sympathy for you, you're in for a rude awakening.
        BugsJustFindMe 8y ago
        Can confirm, as a FOSS developer and advocate with zero tolerance for the kind of petulant disregard for the ethics of sharing and consent being displayed by op.
  - XR0CSWV3h3kZWg 8y ago
    > What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? If your name is still attached you will still get these letters. Because they will continue to try and show they are protecting their IP. > As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them. Then that would be your IP which you'd be free to distribute. You won't receive the same letter again, but you may be breaking an NDA and the terms of which may apply. Why do you think that ipfs and/or blockchain is going to change how copying IP works?
pwinnski 8y ago
To distribute docs to yourself, you download them or store them on "cloud" resources available to yourself. You are distributing the docs to any and all. The fact that nobody has taken you up on your offer is irrelevant.