Slashdot Mirror
FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa
Famatra writes "A story
from Zeropaid indicates that maker of
KaZaA, Sharman Networks, has sent a Cease
and Desist Letter to the maker of KCEasy because it interoperates with their
FastTrack network. The creator of KCeasy says on the
KCEasy website "I feel that inclusion of
FastTrack access with KCeasy is not worth a legal battle between Sharman and
myself". A similar issue was covered by the Slashdot story
Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case on the right to reverse engineer to create
an interoperable network. Reverse engineering to be another on the list of
rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
QUOTE: "A similar issue was covered by the Slashdot story Fight On Blizzard Vs. Bnetd Case on the right to reverse engineer to create an interoperable network. Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?"
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the issue at question here is not whether or not it is legal to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and create an interoperable network, but rather the right to reverse engineer the KaZaA network and provide unlicensed access to the existing network. A subtle, but important distinction.
To draw an analogy, if I create a network of systems that does something, then (as I understand it) it is perfectly legal for you to reverse engineer my methodology and create a competing network that works in a similar way (within the constraints of patents, of course... and the act of reverse engineering something legally is a fairly complex one.) However, it would NOT (nessesarily, depending on the access license for my network) be legal for you to reverse-engineer an unlicensed client that accesses my network. In other words, it's not the act of reverse engineering that's illegal, but rather connecting your client to MY network.
However, in the case of a pure P2P system, I'm not sure that argument will hold up. This would have been an interesting one to watch. Too bad KCEasy backed down so easily.
Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does. Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right. Free speech is a right. Free press is a right. Reverse engineering (within certain constraints) is simply legal.
--- JRJ
jrjBlog
Their whole legal strategy rests on hopping shell companies. If they stood still enough to sue somebody, the RIAA and MPAA could come down on em like a ton o bricks.
Test your net with Netalyzr
It might make sense (for patent holders) to make reverse engineering illegal. But open source seems to nullify this tactic. After all, once the trick behind the invention is discovered, and published, one cannot really "put the genie back in the bottle," so to speak.
Sounds like Kazaa is fighting the same sort of thing for the same sort of reason except that in the case of chat, one must connect to the central servers of the chat netowrk. Can Kazaa really claim ownership-like rights to a network that doesn't depend on their servers for functionality? It would seem that Kazaa has created a Frankenstein monster . . . that perhaps they cannot wholly control . . .
Wouldn't that be lovely?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
We loose rights when copyrights are extended indefinately.
Even when they fail to purchase such legislation, we loose our rights when we don't have the resources to fight them in court.
The courtsystem is extremely weighted in favour of the party with the most money.
Do I have a solution? No. But the problem exists.
Liberty.
yes but it has always remained at the technical level
none of the major messeager nets have ever threatened to take this to court (msn vagely mentioned licenseing at one stage but since seems to have gone quiet)
Dude, that isn't a good analogy by any stretch of the imagination. Kazaa doesn't own its own network, because it's set up using its users' bandwidth; it doesn't in fact provide very much at all, besides the client. After Napster and Audiogalaxy there isn't much in the way of centralization in these networks. What does this mean? It means that KCEasy provides as much of the "network" infrastructure as the real clients. Nothing of Sharman Networks' bandwidth or computing resources are being used up, so why do they get to say who can come in and who stays out?
But they've done it through technical means lately, not by suing the makers of the third party clients. (And generally haven't been very sucessfull)
The bnetd decision should never have been made.
Skipping CD-key checks: Already possible with TCP/IP games, you just can't get onto Battle.net itself. With bnetd, you still can't get onto Battle.net itself. Ergo, you aren't 'beating' the copy protection at all.
Tell me what's SO BAD about emulating the Battle.net service? Game pirates were already playing TCP/IP games and still are.
This is reverse engineering for interoperability. Easy as that. Tell me what about it isn't. Really.
>Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?
All rights that are not defended will fall by the wayside.
I don't know the meaning of the word 'don't' - J
I'm not technically adept enough to argue the qualities of the app itself, but I think it's interesting to note that a couple of posters have mentioned that KCEasy folded easily.
The above is what concerns me. I don't know jack about German law, but I think it's sad that we are again seeing that the mere threat of possible legal action is an effective deterrent.
Today's Davids will never even get a shot at their Goliaths if they can't even afford the price of admission to the arena.
The Dalai Llama
...yeah, I know they fought in an open field...whatever...
My sig could be your sig!
The question of the right to reverse engineer. If reverse engineering becomes illegal and is applied retroactivly, wouldn't that invalidate about half of everything M$ claims or owns?
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Amendment IX
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
i'm tired of all these folks making up "rights" that don't exist.
And I'm tired of people thinking we don't have rights just because they aren't spelled out in the Constitution. Remember, the Constitution limits the rights of the government, it doesn't grant the people rights. We have them to begin with.
"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
If the trade secret/network can be reverse engineered and this is legal and interoperating causes no impact on Kazaa's equipment etc., does Kazaa have the right to prevent other clients from using what is only the same protocol and network standards which were legally reverse engineered?
My gut feeling is no . . . but I wonder if the courts have already ruled on this . . .
Kazaa should have made their network password protected and the servers members only. That way bypassing the membership would be illegal. Reverse engineering is something vital to competition and should not be hindered.
HTTP/1.1 400
...Has gotten to be as nortorius as patents. So I'll just use my classic example of why this could lead to a much worse world:
If everyone had the right to stop reverse engineering of their products, Ford should be allowed to send cease and desist letters to anyone who makes cars. Because building interoperable parts, or better cars infringes on their rights. Besides, who needs a Ferrari anyway?
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
Get up off their network, you didn't have permission to be accessing with and/or generating traffic on it.
What is their "network"? Does it mean connecting to Sharman's servers? No, this is P2P, there are no servers. Does it use their bandwidth? No, the bandwidth is the users'. The "network" is just the collective set of all the Kazaa clients out there that people are using. So what if someone wants to write a program that's compatible with those clients? Is Apache evil because it's compatible with Internet Explorer's "network" of clients?
If this is copyright and/or patent infringment, then it's illegal. If it's genuine theft of intellectual property (information gained by illicit means), then it's illegal. But if it's reverse engineering based on observing the technology, then it should be fair game.
If it's true reverse engineering, then this is just a bully threatening a weakling on the digital playground.
Give me my freedom, and I'll take care of my own security, thank you.
Keep in mind this applies to trade secrets, not patents. In order to have a trade secret, you cannot publish it. i.e. A Trade Secret cannot be a patent because you would have to disclose, in this case, the formula.
If the formula for XCEL were patented, There would be no need for reverse engineering as Phil would already have the formula for XCEL (it was published for patent protection), and couldn't reproduce it legally without a license.
If it were Kazaa's network, they would be out of business. Kazaa testified in court that they only provide a client.