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?"

Comments

Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh?

[jrj102]

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

Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh?

[Quinn_Inuit]

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

I disagree, but then I take a very different view of the Constitution than most people. I believe that the "Progress of Science and the Useful Arts" clause is an express grant of authority to Congress to limit the rights of individuals to copy certain things. Note my terminology--I believe the rights pre-existed the Constitution. In other words, you have the right to reverse engineer someone's design unless the Constitution allows Congress (or the states, but this interplay is more complicated and, since we're talking about federal law here, I'm going to ignore it) to take that right away. Congress has not done so, even under the DMCA, and it might be beyond their authority (not that the current Court seems to think that authority has limits, but you never know).

You're right, this isn't Free Speech or an explicit reserveration of power to the people. Instead, I would argue that this is one of the rights we the people have always had, did not give up at the formation of the Republic, and is perpetually preserved under the 9th Amendment.

That said, I think you're also right about the reverse engineering not being the problem in this case, rather the unauthorized network usage.

Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh?

[jonbryce]

Sharman say it is not their network. They say that they only supply the software.

That is why they are allowed to continue in business, and that is why they are not liable for any copyright infringement that takes place on the network.

The only possible basis therefore for preventing other people from writing software that can connect to the same third party networks that their software connects to is patent infringement.

Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh?

[Zordak]

Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does.

You're obviously not an engineer. The right to reverse enngineer is the right to figure out how something works, and to an engineer, that's about on the same level as the right to breathe. Unfortunately, the DMCA is already pretty much suffocating us.

Haven't we seen similar issues before?

[StateOfTheUnion]

Isn't this a lot like the battles for rights to connect to online chat networks a couple of years ago? I remember folks going after trillian because they didn't want to have third party chat clients connecting in and not letting the chat networks' proprietary client deliver adware/spyware . . .

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 . . .

Good analogy?

[wtrmute]

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?

Re:Good analogy?

[wtrmute]

They'd be tampering with stuff which resides on the bank's servers and isn't meant to be tampered with -- they'd be impersonating me. That isn't even reverse engineering, it's fraud. In this case, the network is being used to upload/download files using whatever (little) authentication is used on the real thing, honestly. It's not impersonating anyone.

Frankly, when I'm sharing stuff on my P2P client, I (as sharer) don't care if whoever gets it is using Kazaa, KCEasy, Morpheus or whatnot. I'm providing the content and the bandwidth and I don't appreciate Sharman telling me who can talk to me and get it and who can't.

Rights

[Progman3K]

>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.

At the end of the post

[BCW2]

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?

Re:*rights*???

[MrBlackBand]

Where in the constitution does it say we have to right to reverse engineer a proprietary network so we can use it to make money?

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.