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?"
The issue with bnetd is not "similar", except in extremely broad terms. The issue at hand wasn't hopping onto the Battle.net network, it was making their OWN network that used a reverse-engineered Battle.net engine.
/. editor.
Not only that, bnetd allowed people to bypass blizzard's CD-key check, which was bad sauce. So this guy's inclusion of FastTrack operability is allowing people to steal the chance to steal software/music? And what about KaZaA-lite? This makes my brain hurt.
Reverse-engineering may have fallen by the wayside, but it has next to nothing to do with f'n bnetd. Submitter must be applying to be a
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
Sharman Networks, has sent a Cease and Desist Letter to the maker of KCEasy because it interoperates with their FastTrack network.
I'm a bit suprised that the KCEasy authors have complied with the cease-and-desist this easily, since the above statement is not really true.
KCEasy is simply a front-end. KCEasy makes use of giFT, which is an interface program, connecting one or more front-ends to one or more protocol plug-ins. giFT then in turn makes use of the giFT-FastTrack plugin which actually communicates on the FastTrack network.
Anway, those of you using KCEasy might want to look into some of the other giFT front-ends, I don't know of any others for windows offhand but I'm guessing they are out there.
Googling for giFTcurs, appolon, giftui will bring up some for *NIX.
Perhaps the best example is their aquisition of patent #5,978,791, filed in 1997, which claims to cover the retrieval of a file across a network using a hash of the file's contents.
Set aside, for a moment, that this technique is completley obvious and has been around for decades (the earliest reference I can find is the Xanadu project from the early 90s - but I haven't looked very hard), and consider the fact that these guys could use this patent to effectively shut down almost anyone that comes up with a P2P app that doesn't have the funding to fight them in court (since most if not all modern P2P apps use this technique).
The bottom line is that companies such as Brilliant Digital Entertainment (the same nice people that were behind the adware that Kazaa is now famous for) are almost as much a threat to P2P as the better known people everybody loves to hate.
If anyone is interested, here is a more detailed article I wrote on the subject.
That the developers of Kazaa are strict believers in tough copyright law. This is simply an extension of that view.
Kazaa Lite Resurrection. Basically a continuation of the KL project. If you MUST use Kazaa, use this.
http://mxp2.free.fr/P2P/KLR007.exe
Kazaa sends a cease and desist letter to YOU!
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 . . .
Let's be clear about the importance of reverse engineering. Were it not for that, if you own a Compaq today, you wouldn't. They reverse engineered the IBM PC BIOS chip way back when, and created the first PC clones. Reverse engineering is a fact, not something that should be made "illegal". Essentially every tire maker has reverse engineered the design of the tire from the first automobile tires, etc. I would argue that nearly all engineering is in some way reverse engineering, and as such, we should be very careful to preserve our freedom to go backwards around stuff... more examples? How about the 900 "Super soaker" knockoffs, despite the original having 10+ patent #'s printed on the plastic device itself? Ever see how many patents are on the cellphone? Yet many companies reverse engineer each other's technologies, and no one really cares -- competition is supposed to be healthy. I don't mean stealing their secrets or making fake Louis Vuitton bags, I mean how the Dooney & Bourke bag looks "interestingly similar" to the LV bag.
stuff |
IANAL , But I believe reverse engineering is legal except if some other law i.e. patent or DCMA is violated.
5 1, 39147906,00.htm6 427.html?legacy=c net
Here is a recent bit of news on the topic:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,390206
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-23
The most famous case of reverse engineering was Compaq developing a BIOS for it's IBM PC clone.
There is one group of people that cannot be stopped from using information protected under trade secret law. These are people who discover the secret independently, that is, without using illegal means or violating agreements or state laws. For example, it is not a violation of trade secret law to analyze (or "reverse engineer") any lawfully obtained product and determine its trade secret.
EXAMPLE
XCEL glue is comprised of a trade secret protected formula. Phil, a chemist, analyzes the contents of XCEL glue, determines its composition and recreates the formula. Phil can legally use this information to make and sell his own glue.
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?
... Ford Motors, inc. has announced its patent on "ROAD", a network protocol for piloting land vehicles. Several other companies, including General Motors, DaimlerChrysler, Honda, Toyota, Volkswagen, Nissan, and Uncle Hiram's Buggies also make vehicles that are compatible with the ROAD protocol.
Ford has threatened to sue these companies, alleging that they reverse-engineered key parts of ROAD, including the maximum width of allowable vehicles, and the use of round "wheels" for efficient travel on ROAD networks.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted
The law in the USA is quite different in this respect and it could be that you'll be fried when attempting such a thing there. (Jon Johansen was acquitted in Norway for DeCSS, while those in the US that only linked to it were convicted.)
IANAL, if you want to try this at home see one (a lawyer) first.
extern warranty;
main()
{
(void)warranty;
}
>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
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.
As for intruding on a private network, the network is composed primarily of users, if I'm not mistaken. Still, companies like E-bay have been successful in using trespass (to chattles) to keep people off their servers if they make it clear that they don't want them on there.
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."
AMD had a license. They where an official second source for 286 and 368 processors.
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.