Slashdot Mirror
Legal Issues of Opening Up Proprietary Standards?
mrjb asks: "The Alesis HD24 is a 24-track, hard disk audio recorder with a built-in 10 megabit FTP server. To improve on file transfer speed, Alesis offers an external Firewire drive with a program called FST/Connect which reads the disks under Windows. I've contacted Alesis about a Linux solution, but none is planned. Also, they are (understandably) not very eager to reveal the file system specs. After a few days of staring at hex codes, I now know enough about the FS to read HD24 IDE disks under Linux (no Firewire required). As I know I benefit from the efforts of the Samba and OpenOffice teams, I'd love to share this info. I'm not, however, the least bit interested in Alesis suing me (in fact, I might want to send them my CV at some point). What would your advice be in such a delicate situation of conflicting interests?"
Wouldn't this fall into the fair use catagory? I mean if you purchase the equipment then don't you have the right to be able to use it?
I love random hex numbers! Just like this one, 09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0.
Write up a spec sheet, get onto an anonymizer service, and e-mail the specs to either someone interested in writing a driver, or a hobbyist e-mail list. Or write the driver yourself and publish the source in the same manner. Either way, just use an anonymizer service.
If you're looking to take credit for it, well, (possibly) getting sued is the price you pay for fame.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
As always, this is not legal advice, if you get legal advice on Slashdot, get your head checked.
If you reverse engineered their disk standard by yourself, you are fine legally, There's nothing illegal about reverse engineering (exception copy restriction technology per the DMCA). Now if you used some of their developer docs or something to do it you could be on the hook if they made you agree not to use them for reverse engineering before giving them to you. However if this was all on your own, then there's no worries.
Now, this doesn't mean they can't sue you it just means they won't win if you are competently represented. They could still file a suit and it probably would get past inital hearings, so you'd actually have to fight it in court.
As for employment, well if you release this and it pisses them off then you can expect they won't employ you, and they'll be within their rights to do so. So if you are seriously thinking about getting a job with them, you might want to reconsider.
Something else I will point out, though I am not advocating, is that the Internet is large, spans international borders, and is not well monitored. If you don't care about credit and don't do things to draw attention to yourself (like posting on Slashdot) there's no reason you couldn't do an anonymous release on a website in a country that doesn't much care, like Russia.
Try emailing a public contact at Samba and see if they can give you any advice. They obviously had to figure this out a long time ago.
You could also contact a lawyer.
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
Before he does that, what he really ought to be doing is talking to an attorney. An attorney can give you advice on what measures you can take to minimize your legal exposure here. That advice may include what you need to do to assure that you've done this in a clean manner. Having specs you hand off to somebody else may not provide the kind of validation that is needed.
In the end though you can do this 100% on the up and up and still get sued. A good lawyer will tell you that. Will they win the lawsuit? Not if you do this right, but then how many thousands of dollars will you blow defending the lawsuit, whether you win or not.
Whatever you decide to do an attorney can give you a clear perspective on what the ramifications are.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
...but they'd be unlikely to offer you a job if you have publically denied them of revenue.
It's your call - and totally separate from the legal argument.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
What's remarkable is that the IP lobbyists have managed to generate such a level of paranoia that people are frightened to use their God-given gifts to advance technology and the interests of the community.
If reverse-engineering is outlawed, then technological progress is at risk.
From the post -
The vendor didn't want to release the fs info. The post author is NOT the vendor.
Since it was reversed, this implies others can reverse it.
Why not release the results? The vendor is simply unwilling to support Linux (implied, BSD) OS. This way, they AREN'T supporting it.
Will the author get sued? If the author lives in the USA, maybe, otherwise almost certainly not. The author wants to work for the company? So, go ahead and publish -- it will get their attention. And if its not in a positive way, *I* wouldn't want to work for them.
Ratboy.
Just another "Cubible(sic) Joe" 2 17 3061
Even if the onus of proof is on the prosecution, that won't stop them from creating a long, drawn-out trial that will bankrupt the defendant before the case even gets close to providing justice. So yes, in an idealistic world where lawyers don't require money and time is not an issue, the onus is on the prosecution. However, we don't live in that world, and unless he can prove very quickly that the case has no merit, he's going to get the legal crap beat out of him, regardless of whether or not he's done anything wrong.
It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
- E. Debs
I understand the value of this question as a conversation topic, but..
Honestly, the best thing you can do is talk to a professional that actually knows something about this, rather than a whole bunch geeks who have nothing better to do than post stuff on Slashdot that is highly apocryphal, or at least wildly inaccurate, especially considering that a lot is at stake here for you.
Register the editry.
Why don't you write it anyway (strictly for your own use, to start with), and then once it is working well (and you are happy with it), pitch it back to the manufacturer?
t er, but assuming you find someone with some imagination, they might actually help you with it (or indeed, if you are really lucky, employ you...)
If you look at it from their perspective: through reverse-engineering, you have created a driver for their product which potentially extends the market of that product for no up-front cost to them. What's more, assuming you don't release it into the wild without their consent, you have given them a chance to decide how they want to proceed with it -- you are playing fair with them.
Worst case, they get all legal about it, and cease/desist/wash-your-mouth-out-with-soap-and-wa
aren't developing something new and giving back to the OS community with this, you are reverse engineering a (presumably) patented product and wanting to release that knowledge into the OS community.
You claim there's a difference, but this is exactly what OpenOffice and Samba did.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
That might work against him, and I would say check with a lawyer first. They might say he was blackmailing him or something.
To give you a little bit of perspective, I've worked for several Alesis dealers, the first back in 1985 when they were just getting off the ground.
The company loves to sue. LOVES to.
And they don't particularly care about the consequences, even if it hurts them. I've watched them pull product from major accounts because they'd gotten into some tiff with the store over policy.
I'd keep your discovery under wraps.
And, for what it's worth, I'd avoid working there.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
So first off, anyone who "asks slashdot" about legal issues is asking for public opinion, not legal fact. I did not need to preface this with "IANAL", but I did so to call attention to the fact that slashdot is the wrong forum. You can't get legal advice from anyone but a lawyer you have arragements with. It's stupid even to go to somewhere like groklaw and ask for advice. Pay a lawyer or take your chances.
Second, reverse engineering IS legal. Your cynicism is masking that fact. Yes, it is dangerous, but the question sounded like some frustrated guy who figured out a file format all by himself. There are dozens of things he could have done to make his particular reverse illegal, but I suspect he did so honestly or he wouldn't be asking. Lawyers could clarify the subject, all us geeks are going to say is "if you didn't cheat, it's OK".
Third, the DMCA makes reverse engineering copy protection methods illegal. This particular part of the DMCA has not been tested, ever, on purpose. It probably would get thrown out. It is unlikely that someone would crack copy protection on purpose, without intent to enable piracy. But it has been done, and no charges filed on that issue. That is why I made the statement about "being willing to get drug through the mud".
Fourth, you don't need to be a lawyer to make statements about what is right. Most of law is what society thinks is right vs. wrong turned in to words that can then be applied equally and fairly. Very often the written law is well behind public opinion, and one way that changes is by forcing it.
Finally, Engineering 101. When in doubt, shout it out.
But there are two questions: Is it legal? and, Will there be a lawsuit? It seems that releasing the code would be completely legal. Even so, nobody wants to invite a lawsuit, particularly given the legal environment in the US. Win, lose, or settle, a lawsuit will end up costing time and money. This is truly depressing and unjust. What can we do about it? And on top of all that, the author wants to remain on good terms with the corporation for a possible job application.
Could you provide a reference to the particular law and section? It is my understanding that reverse engineering is not only legal in most cases, it is even protected. It's only a few rare exceptions that are illegal such as (potentially) EULA restrictions and creating software that bypasses copyrightprotections, thanks to the DMCA.
Unless this guys is violating his EULA, I'm not sure where the violation is. Still, it is good to check with a lawyer.
Not be an ass, but why not consult a lawyer? Or ask your question where the people have legal degrees, or have spent 5 or 10 or 20 years studying and practicing law, rather than a board where people have spent 5 or 10 or 50 yearss studying tech.
Would you ask a group of doctors how to rebuild you car engine? I would hope you would ask an auto mechanic.
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
What could he be sued under? Anything. All they have to do is file the suit and he'll probably have to settle due to the overwheming legal fees associated with defending oneself, even if he did absolutely nothing wrong.
Sell the company a Linux implementation. You make money, the company makes money, everyone is happy.
Obviously the company might not be all that willing to do that, but if they are, it's a win-win situation.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
The problem is that some of the idiots yelling "VIOLATION" have lawyers. See the Blizzard v. Bnetd case. Even if you haven't signed an NDA, they can get you for reverse-engineering their code, either through the DMCA or by pulling out the shrink-wrap EULA.
It's utter bullshit, but bullshit with powerful backers.
On the positive side, with wireless, anonymity is trivial.
In the US the same person can't disassemble and examine as the person whose writing the new code.
;)
If all you did was look at the file system, you're ok (but you have to prove that.) If you disassembled their windows driver, then all you can do is make a spec like the parent said.
It's the same way Compaq cloned the IBM PC Bios. They had to setup a clean room environment for the actual developers handing them only the spec written by the disassemblers.
But most importantly, talk to a lawyer
Generally speaking, if a company wants to make it difficult for you to use their product in some way that you consider important, the right thing to do is to not do business with them. That way you don't run into all of these hairy legal issues. Honestly, it's just not worth the trouble - why would you even want to go down this road?
Reverse engineering their product may be legal, depending on the jurisdiction in which you live. Litigating it will cost you more than you can afford, unless you're rich.
If you want to get a job there, you definitely mustn't release this stuff - given their (weird) stance on patents and file formats, it's extremely unlikely that the management there would let you be hired even if the geeks there were impressed with your work.
First thing you need to do is talk to a lawyer specializing in IP and patents. The company's very likely to try legal action against you if you release your driver, and you're going to need legal advice and help to deal with them. A couple of questions:
The main point above is that you're in for legal flack even if you're completely in the clear, so talk to a lawyer first.
That's not how the world works, it's how the US works.
It's an IDE hard drive with a firewire interface ASIC. That hardware is not patented by Alesis. What they possibly hold a patent to, is the bastardized filesystem they're using specifically to prevent interop. Why they're doing this I don't know, as you're already paying a premium for "audio-grade" hardware. Joe Idiot Movie Ripper isn't going to buy these for his media center PC. Perhaps they just don't want people using Alesis' hard drives with non-Alesis ADAT recorders.. the smart thing would be for everyone else to support generic USB and 1394 hard drives and leave Alesis in their self-inflicted proprietary hell.
-Billco, Fnarg.com
Because hes not asking a legal question. The original question has to do with not pissing off the company and nothing to do with winning a legal battle against them.
Admittedly its kind of strange to ask someone else how not to hurt another parties feelings.
The reason to Ask Slashdot about it is that there might be people here who have first-hand knowledge of the legal issues behind reverse-engineering proprietray products -- not because they are lawyers, but because they have done reverse engineering of their own. It's all well and good to say "consult a lawyer," but what type of lawyer? At the very least, someone who has done this themselves may be able to put them in touch with IP lawyers who specialize in "clean room" reverse enigineering issues.
Could you provide a reference to the particular law and section?
Bright Tunes Music v. Harrisongs Music, 420 F. Supp. 177 (SDNY 1976), upheld on appeal as ABKCO Music v. Harrisongs Music, 722 F.2d 988, 221 USPQ 490. The key finding of law in Bright Tunes was that subconscious copying is actionable infringement. The dirty/clean room structure of a reverse engineering operation is a way to eliminate possibility of subconscious copying by eliminating possibility of the clean room engineers' access to the copyrighted work under analysis. Though this works in software, it unfortunately does not work in music because commercial FM radio puts the whole world in the dirty room.