7 ms·
The takedown request is based on > MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App St
by sp1rit 3y ago
The takedown request is based on
> MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.
Is this really legal? Because in my mind, providing the same functionality does not violate copyright, since the actual intellectual material is new. And I don't think Mazda has a patent on the ability to control your vehicle over an API.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- darkr 3y agoMost likely this would not stand up in court, given a proficient legal team. I imagine that the hobbyist developer had neither the money nor the inclination to mount a legal defence against a multi-billion dollar company though.
- sccxy 3y agoEven view-source is considered "hacking" and you might easily end up in jail if some dumb judge/prosecutor decides so. https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hacking/ https://www.theregister.com/2022/02/15/missouri_html_hacking...
- ensignavenger 3y agoThere were no charges filed in this case. The prosecutor correctly ascertained that the allegations were false and the whole thing was a waste of taxpayer money.
- sccxy 3y agoYeah, but still it is/was very stressful for this person. Never know when they decide otherwise. "Hacking/cyber crime" is very wide and open term.
- bombcar 3y agoPeople would be absolutely aghast at how much trouble the law can make for you without ever actually even charging you with anything. And how relatively easy lawfare can be brought against someone, especially if the person bringing it has infinite money and/or nothing to lose.
- mminer237 3y agoIf they just provide the same functionality, no. Mazda should lose this under Google v. Oracle. However, reverse engineering is dangerous. They surely read the copyrighted decompiled code. The test is whether the expressive elements of bdr99's implementation are substantially similar.
- Nextgrid 3y ago> They surely read the copyrighted decompiled code Do they? When it comes to reverse-engineering mobile app APIs, the usual strategy is to observe the network because it's so much easier than making sense of the disassembled binary. Even if you can decompile, you'd generally use it as an aid to understand the network captures rather than using it as your primary source.
- hultner 3y agoThis is what I would usually do as well, self-MiTM and analyze the traffic, reverse engineer from there.
- aneutron 3y agoWhile if possible, it's the best course of action, the truth is these days additions like HSTS make it extremely difficult to MITM. Additionally, MITM and trying things out on a toaster are one thing, doing the same on a 40k$ machine that can potentially make it impossible to do your commute is another. This is IMO a prime example where the double team rev eng is key to success: one documents the API, the other uses it without having access to code (whiteroom)
- ameliaquining 3y agoNitpick: HSTS doesn't interfere with MITM. You're thinking of certificate pinning.
- aneutron 3y ago
- failrate 3y agoDMCA != copyright
- hysan 3y agoProbably not, but more and more I’ve been reminded that the law only applies if you have the financial means to prove/defend your position in court.