4 ms·

There are two problems with this approach: 1. I don't want to get involved in that, even if I'm based in Uruguay and they'd have a hard time suing me. 2. What

by g3rv4 8y ago

There are two problems with this approach: 1. I don't want to get involved in that, even if I'm based in Uruguay and they'd have a hard time suing me. 2. What they could do is put resources to detect the extension and block it. We could start a mouse and cat game that they'd win... I don't have their resources to invest in it. After all, all I wanted was to solve Slack for me, and that would make it harder.

splatzone 8y ago
Could they really sue you for creating a chrome extension that modifies their webpage? That would be a very dark day for the internet. I can't imagine there's any legal basis for that, but it would be very interesting to hear a lawyer's opinion. Well done on what you have achieved, keep fighting the good fight!
- calgoo 8y ago
  I dont think they can, or all the adblockers would have been removed already.
  - rovr138 8y ago
    Any extension that Interacts with pages. I have so many of them. Vimium injects itself onto every page.
- TehCorwiz 8y ago
  (Goes without saying, but IANAL) It's my understanding that in the US you can be sued by anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the case has merit, but it does mean you're obligated to defend yourself or lose by default. This is often the mechanism by which patent/copyright trolls put pressure on their 'mark.' It sounds like the plugin author isn't located in the US, so this may be moot, but countries colonized or invaded by European countries or the US often have similar legal systems. I doubt they'd win in a fair fight, but I also doubt the plugin author can afford to put up a fair fight.
- g3rv4 8y ago
  I don't know and I also don't want to figure it out :)
- cookiecaper 8y ago
  IANAL -- but I've been on the receiving end of a MegaCorp's C&D for alleged violations of the Copyright Act, the CFAA, and other things. The biggest thing is Terms, which will almost always exclude any tampering of any kind, client or server side. These agreements are usually upheld in the US. So that's hurdle #1. The CFAA isn't really obviated by client-side modifications, because the CFAA allows essentially arbitrary definition of "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access". If they tell you to cease and desist, most judges won't believe that you can reasonably claim that you didn't know your access was unauthorized. The CFAA makes unauthorized computer and network access illegal. There's a third barrier here, which is copyright law. The "RAM Copy doctrine" is the dominant interpretation, and it states that even the temporary copies that exist within RAM are sufficiently tangible to qualify for copyright protection, meaning you either need a license from the rightsholder or you need to prove fair use just to load the content. The only way I can see that that wouldn't affect client-side applications would be if they access everything through a proxy without ever actually loading the copyrighted content directly, i.e., by injecting and accessing the DOM through the browser. But you'd still have to convince the judge that the extension itself is not infringing on the work it alters, which seems unlikely -- it would likely be considered a derivative work. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe all this is wrong. You shouldn't rely on it. But the situation is not as dreamy as people think. BigCos keep this bully pulpit relatively quiet because it makes it easy for them to crush upstart competitors who may offer a "move your profile from $X" feature. With the data locked up, the users never move.
bartread 8y ago
> What they could do is put resources to detect the extension and block it. We could start a mouse and cat game that they'd win... I don't have their resources to invest in it. After all, all I wanted was to solve Slack for me, and that would make it harder. Honestly, if they do that they're idiots and, longer term, slack is a dying product: they'd be much, and I mean MUCH, better served by investing those resources in improving the product.
danmg 8y ago
change it to 'SlackSucks'. Make it change the logo to a toilet or some sticks of ram that are on fire. It's now a parody.
thsowers 8y ago
You could still continue development on Github, and allow users to install the extension themselves. I believe this is the approach that some paywall bypass extensions take[0] [0]: https://github.com/arthurpham/wsjUnblock https://github.com/arthurpham/wsjUnblock
- g3rv4 8y ago
  that’s def something I’d like to try if they are ok with it
Trufa 8y ago
On a side note, cool to see Uruguayans at the top of HN. Sorry it's under this circumstances. Congrats on your Stackoverflow job :) You wouldn't happen to have any recommendations for hiring web-devs here in Uruguay for a small startup? It's CRAZY HARD.
- g3rv4 8y ago
  GO 🇺🇾! nope, I’ve never worked for a Uruguayan company ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

by g3rv4 8y ago

splatzone 8y ago

Could they really sue you for creating a chrome extension that modifies their webpage? That would be a very dark day for the internet. I can't imagine there's any legal basis for that, but it would be very interesting to hear a lawyer's opinion. Well done on what you have achieved, keep fighting the good fight!

calgoo 8y ago
I dont think they can, or all the adblockers would have been removed already.
- rovr138 8y ago
  Any extension that Interacts with pages. I have so many of them. Vimium injects itself onto every page.
TehCorwiz 8y ago
(Goes without saying, but IANAL) It's my understanding that in the US you can be sued by anyone for anything. That doesn't mean the case has merit, but it does mean you're obligated to defend yourself or lose by default. This is often the mechanism by which patent/copyright trolls put pressure on their 'mark.' It sounds like the plugin author isn't located in the US, so this may be moot, but countries colonized or invaded by European countries or the US often have similar legal systems. I doubt they'd win in a fair fight, but I also doubt the plugin author can afford to put up a fair fight.
g3rv4 8y ago
I don't know and I also don't want to figure it out :)
cookiecaper 8y ago
IANAL -- but I've been on the receiving end of a MegaCorp's C&D for alleged violations of the Copyright Act, the CFAA, and other things. The biggest thing is Terms, which will almost always exclude any tampering of any kind, client or server side. These agreements are usually upheld in the US. So that's hurdle #1. The CFAA isn't really obviated by client-side modifications, because the CFAA allows essentially arbitrary definition of "unauthorized access" and "exceeding authorized access". If they tell you to cease and desist, most judges won't believe that you can reasonably claim that you didn't know your access was unauthorized. The CFAA makes unauthorized computer and network access illegal. There's a third barrier here, which is copyright law. The "RAM Copy doctrine" is the dominant interpretation, and it states that even the temporary copies that exist within RAM are sufficiently tangible to qualify for copyright protection, meaning you either need a license from the rightsholder or you need to prove fair use just to load the content. The only way I can see that that wouldn't affect client-side applications would be if they access everything through a proxy without ever actually loading the copyrighted content directly, i.e., by injecting and accessing the DOM through the browser. But you'd still have to convince the judge that the extension itself is not infringing on the work it alters, which seems unlikely -- it would likely be considered a derivative work. Again, I'm not a lawyer. Maybe all this is wrong. You shouldn't rely on it. But the situation is not as dreamy as people think. BigCos keep this bully pulpit relatively quiet because it makes it easy for them to crush upstart competitors who may offer a "move your profile from $X" feature. With the data locked up, the users never move.

bartread 8y ago

> What they could do is put resources to detect the extension and block it. We could start a mouse and cat game that they'd win... I don't have their resources to invest in it. After all, all I wanted was to solve Slack for me, and that would make it harder. Honestly, if they do that they're idiots and, longer term, slack is a dying product: they'd be much, and I mean MUCH, better served by investing those resources in improving the product.

danmg 8y ago

change it to 'SlackSucks'. Make it change the logo to a toilet or some sticks of ram that are on fire. It's now a parody.

thsowers 8y ago

You could still continue development on Github, and allow users to install the extension themselves. I believe this is the approach that some paywall bypass extensions take[0] [0]: https://github.com/arthurpham/wsjUnblock https://github.com/arthurpham/wsjUnblock

g3rv4 8y ago
that’s def something I’d like to try if they are ok with it

Trufa 8y ago

On a side note, cool to see Uruguayans at the top of HN. Sorry it's under this circumstances. Congrats on your Stackoverflow job :) You wouldn't happen to have any recommendations for hiring web-devs here in Uruguay for a small startup? It's CRAZY HARD.

g3rv4 8y ago
GO 🇺🇾! nope, I’ve never worked for a Uruguayan company ¯\_(ツ)_/¯