Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Software The Internet Your Rights Online

FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa 300

Posted by timothy from the hey-no-stealing dept.
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?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa More

FOSS Application Under Attack by Makers of KaZaa

Comments Filter:

  • Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:41PM (#8999062)
    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.

    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 /. editor.

    • Re:Someone failed Sesame Street (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      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.
    • IIRC the bnetd group had contacted blizzard for inclusion of their cd checking scheme into the software. When they did not get a reply, they released without this feature.

  • Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jrj102 ( 87650 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:41PM (#8999065) Homepage
    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
    • In other words, it?s not the act of reverse engineering that?s illegal, but rather connecting your client to MY network.

      Or how about:
      Accessing a MS Terminal Server machine using rdesktop with the intent of not paying for the license to do so.

    • 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? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:54PM (#8999269) Homepage
      What about all of those alternative IM clients out there? Is this any different?

      And, since Kazaa is P2P as you said, are any Kazaa owned servers involved in this? Or are they saying "you can't access other peoples computers using our protocol"? (I have no idea since I don't use Kazaa or IM)

      Unless Kazaa owns the machines and the network, all they have is a program that lets computers talk to one another.

      • Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by codemachine ( 245871 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:43PM (#9000690)
        Actually, most IM networks use a central server (run by AOL, MS, or Yahoo), yet gaim, Trillian, and Kopete have not been sued. These clients have managed to reverse engineer the protocol and connect to these servers, and for the most part, the IM companies have given up on stopping them from doing it.

        In the case of Kazaa, there isn't even a central server there. The protocol was reversed engineered, and used to connect to other client machines. I'm not sure if Sharman Networks really has a say in who can connect to other user's machines. I doubt KCEasy really has anything to worry about technology-wise. They do have to worry that Sharman probably has a whole lot more money to throw at lawyers though. I imagine this has more to do with why KCEasy backed down than the actual merits of any lawsuit.
    • I think that they do have a right to exclude unofficial clients from connecting to their server (or network).

      I don't think they have a right to prevent anyone from making or distributing a compatible client.

      Here's the kicker; I don't think they have a right to prevent people from using a compatible client to connect to instances of the client they provide.

      The question is, what is "their network?" Is it anything other than a bunch of people running their P2P software on the public Internet? If so, I think they have no rights at all.

      Please note that this is my analysis of the ethics involved, not my analysis of the laws involved.

      -Peter
      • Fasttrack networks have central servers. It's definitely their network.

        Reverse engineering for the sake of interoperability is a (supposedly) protected activity.

        Nonetheless if they want to prevent people from connecting, they need to use some sort of authentication. Using another client might break the use agreement for the server, but if you can connect to the server without agreeing to a license (which you can, far as I can tell) then they really should not have any leg to stand on.

        • Nonetheless if they want to prevent people from connecting, they need to use some sort of authentication.

          But, by centralizing authentication, then they lose the defense of "We just make the software. We can't police how it's used." They fall into the same hole Napster did. Since the authorities would know who was running the software, they could subpoena records from the Kazaa makers to prosecute file traders.

    • Interoperability with someone else's device is exactly the point of reverse engineering. You may look at Sega v. Accolade (pre-DMCA) for a good example, where it found that Accolade could copy those functions made by Sega required for compatibility with their console. The analogy with game (client) and console (server) works pretty well.

      The same right was explicitly upheld in the DMCA (Title 17, Chapter 12, Section 1201f). So it should be 100% legal. Not that it seems that way, but anyway. What may be ille

    • Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by jonbryce ( 703250 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:26PM (#8999697) Homepage
      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? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by kscguru ( 551278 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:29PM (#8999740)
      Just because something is not illegal doesn't make it a right.

      US Constitution, Amendment X: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

      (Yes, I understand if you are not in the US - but since so much of these rights issues crop up in the US, I think it applies).

      But, that's beside the point. Really, I can't see how reverse-engineering could be forbidden by copyright AT ALL. I can see patents forbidding reverse engineering (which is another issue), but copyright / DMCA doesn't even apply.

      To anyone designing networks:

      • If you want to forbid access to your network, toss some sort of copyrighted part into the protocol. Example: all packets must carry the string "Foobar network, copyright Evil Corp" in a header somewhere, any packet w/o that information must be dropped. THEN, you can restrict access to your network based on copyright (copying that string into the packet is a blindingly obvious violation of copyright!). Yes it wastes a few bytes, but you wanted an exclusive network, right? Exclusivity ain't free!
      • Or, patent the implementation of the network. But, as the parent is noting, that may or may not hold up legally - whereas a copyrighted string certainly should. (Yeah, IANAL)
      My opinion: if a company wants to retain control of their network, it needs to be through copyright. A trivial protocol change! But then the rest of us (e.g. slashdot crowd) can reverse-engineer the protocol, CHANGE THAT STRING, and have an entirely separate network! Then, reverse-engineering = legal, sharing that network = illegal. It's not that difficult! And it's one hell of a lot cheaper than lawsuits...

    • Re:Reverse Engineering: A right? In danger? Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zordak ( 123132 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:31PM (#8999755) Homepage Journal
      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.
    • "Also, to be clear, I don't consider reverse engineering to be "a right" as the poster does."

      If you look at statutory copyright law, e.g. the UK CDPA 1988, you will see that it is "a right". So if you believe something that's different to the reality of the law (and the cases that have been decided upon it), then good luck to you, and say hello to the fairies for me.
    • Everything is a "right" under natural law unless it infringes on a legitimate right of another. My right to swing my fist does not extend to your nose, for example. My right to write software does not take away any of your rights.

      There is no right to make a profit, even in a capitalist economy. The recognition of a "right" to profit equals merchantilism.

  • KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:5, Informative)

    by untermensch ( 227534 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:42PM (#8999073)
    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 [sourceforge.net], 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 [berlios.de] 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.

    • Re:KCEasy is just a front-end (Score:5, Informative)

      by twitchkat ( 566638 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:02PM (#8999386) Homepage
      KCEasy is simply a front-end. KCEasy makes use of giFT

      KCEasy may be just a front-end, but it is a front-end developed by one of the guys heavily involved in reverse-engineering the KaZaA encryption algorithms (eg, /src/crypt/enc_type_*.c) for the giFT-fasttrack plug-in: mkern.

      See:

      http://cvs.berlios.de/cgi-bin/viewcvs.cgi/gift-fas ttrack/giFT-FastTrack/src/crypt/ [berlios.de]

      Maybe the KaZaA people are miffed at his reverse-engineering ways and chose to attack here rather than at the gift-fasttrack plug-in level?

    • KCEasy bundles all of giFT and makes it much easier to get online using OpenFT, Gnutella, and up until a few days ago FastTrack. I don't know of any other Windows client that made it as easy as installing the program and everything works like a charm out of the package. It took me about 15 minutes to setup Apollon in Linux, and I never did figure out giFToxic.

      I believe KCEasy is open sourced, so it wouldn't be that hard to create a modified version that has FastTrack support and was distributed via Gnut

    • I believe people here are missing the point. KCEasy is one of the few Windows clients that is compatible with Kazaa's Fastrack network (besides Kazaa-lite). Sharman probably doesn't care nearly as much about Linux clones.

      The KCEasy site still links to the old version, 0.11, which includes the Fastrack plugin. It runs fine on Windows XP and works with Fastrack (Kazaa), Gnutella, and OpenFT.

      KCEasy v0.11 with Fastrack Goodness [sourceforge.net]

      --Pat / zippy@cs.brandeis.edu

    • Seems to me that the easy way out for KCEasy is to ship their client without the gift-fasttrack plugin. The users can then figure out how to install the plugin themselves. This way KCEasy doesn't supply FastTrack access, but users can still add this functionality.

      I'm not sure how far they'd want to go in helping the users find documentation on gift-fasttrack though. Maybe if they had a forum on their website, they could let the users supply that information too.

  • Latest threat to P2P comes from within (Score:5, Informative)

    by Sanity ( 1431 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:42PM (#8999090) Homepage Journal
    This is just one example of the increasing threat that Kazaa, or more precicely the companies around it, pose to innovation in the P2P space.

    Perhaps the best example is their aquisition of patent #5,978,791 [uspto.gov], 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 [riaa.org].

    If anyone is interested, here [slashdot.org] is a more detailed article I wrote on the subject.

  • I think we all recognize (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:42PM (#8999092)
    That the developers of Kazaa are strict believers in tough copyright law. This is simply an extension of that view.
    • This *is* funny, but true as well. Few seem to have noticed that KaZaA is countersuing the music industry for 'hacking' into their network using an 'illegal' client. See here:

      http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/biztech/09/24/kazaa .s ues.ap/

      This coincided with the time Sharman cracked down on Kazaa Lite. I think they have to continue to crack down on unauthorized clients if they want to have a leg to stand on in court.

  • reverse engineering a right? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Other White Boy ( 626206 ) <theotherwhiteboy&gmail,com> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:43PM (#8999097)
    and here i was under the assumption that it was (technically) illegal. anyone care to fill in the gaps for me?

    • Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by the eric conspiracy ( 20178 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:57PM (#8999310)
      IANAL , But I believe reverse engineering is legal except if some other law i.e. patent or DCMA is violated.

      Here is a recent bit of news on the topic:

      http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/legal/0,3902065 1, 39147906,00.htm
      http://news.com.com/2100-1023-236 427.html?legacy=c net

      The most famous case of reverse engineering was Compaq developing a BIOS for it's IBM PC clone.

    • Re:reverse engineering a right? (Score:4, Informative)

      by MathFox ( 686808 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:04PM (#8999412)
      In the Netherlands it is legal (under certain conditions) to reverse engineer a program "to create an interoperable program". I have all reasons to believe Markus Kern when he sais that his reverse engineering of the Kazaa network is legal in Germany.

      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.

      • much thanks to all three of the above replies to grandparent. i never knew about the compaq bios thing and find that pretty interesting..so i guess 'legal as long as the target doesn't say not to' is about as safe as it gets here.

        i'm thinking calling it a 'right' is still a bit of a stretch tho. =)

  • Kazaa Lite Resurrection (Score:3, Informative)

    by Johnny Doughnuts ( 767951 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:44PM (#8999107)
    Kazaa Lite Resurrection. Basically a continuation of the KL project. If you MUST use Kazaa, use this.

    http://mxp2.free.fr/P2P/KLR007.exe
    • I haven't actually tried it out, but it seems like this is Kazaa Lite Resurrection 0.0.7 (AKA Kazaa Lite 2.6 RC21b, it appears). Mods, download and run on your trash Windows box, and THEN mod down if it's a trojan.

  • You know it's a dark day when.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:45PM (#8999117)
    Kazaa sends a cease and desist letter to YOU!

  • Uhh, how can Sharman sue you... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nweaver ( 113078 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:45PM (#8999121) Homepage
    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.
  • 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.
    • <IANAL>Having the "trick" known is not a defense for violating a patent. In fact once the patent is granted, the trick is known because the patent is published. Having the information known to others is only a valid (legal) reason for disallowing protection of a trade secret.

      Putting "the genie back in the bottle" is not something the patent holder is requried to do, it's simply a practical measure, but that's where the lawsuits come in.</IANAL>

    • Actually, Patent holders probably don't care too much about reverse engineering because their invention is disclosed and open to review in the patent application. They cannot keep the functionality secret or legally they wouldn't get a patent. The patent gives them monopolistic protection for a limited period of time in exchange for disclosing the "secrets" of their invention.

      (Disclaimer: This only applies when the patent process works the way it was intended . . . the silly patents of late may not apply)

    • It might make sense (for patent holders) to make reverse engineering illegal

      No, actually that doesn't make any sense at all. If you create something and patent it, I can read the patent to find out how it works. Why would I bother reverse-engineering it? Why would you care if I did, given that I would only learn the information that's already publicly available for free in the patent?

  • Haven't we seen similar issues before? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:45PM (#8999133) Homepage
    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 . . .

  • giftd goes too... (Score:3, Informative)

    by someguy456 ( 607900 ) <someguy456@phreaker.net> on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:46PM (#8999137) Homepage Journal
    For those of you unfamiliar with Kceasy, or windows in general, KCeasy is only a client for the giFT server http://gift.sourceforge.net/ . However, an additional plugin is required to access the Fasttrack network (Kazaa). Thus, I think that only the development of this plugin will cease, and that giFT and KCeasy will live.
  • If this right existed (to keep other people out of your network on the Internet), then none of the IM clients could legally interoperate with the others until they agreed to licensing terms.

    Wouldn't that be lovely?

    • If this right existed (to keep other people out of your network on the Internet)...[silly example]

      If this right existed, then people would be able to require payment for access to pornography sites; folks would be permitted to ban specific IPs, and groups of IPs, from their sites; and Slashdot would be able to have subscriber-specific content. Wait, they can? Shit.

  • Quick! Download KCEasy off of Kazaa while you can!
  • 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.

  • Yes. WE have lost rights... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by 7-Vodka ( 195504 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:52PM (#8999237) Journal
    We loose rights when corporations lobby for and purchase laws like the DMCA.
    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.

  • Gray area (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Richard_at_work ( 517087 ) * on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:52PM (#8999240)
    While I agree that the Bnetd issue was fairly lame, this one is more in a gray area. The FastTrack clients dont run on an independant network, and KCeasys interoperability with the FastTrack network means interacting with Sharman Networks servers to auth the user and provide various other facilities while the Bnetd solution produced a fully independant network, where people could join without any interaction with Blizzards servers at all, and that is the major difference in this case.

    I dont think "Reverse engineering to be another on the list of rights that have fallen by the wayside?" is a valid concern here, because the main issue seems to be that KCeasy interacts with SN servers, in a way that SN has not authorised or granted consent to. If KCeasy produced a fully seperate network, that simply used the FastTrack protocol, then my view would be different, but it doesnt, so it isnt. KCeasy is using the FastTrack network and Sharman Networks servers without consent, simple really.
  • Bnetd wasn't trying to "interoperate" with Blizzard's network. It was trying to make a network that could be used instead of Blizzard's network.

    KCEasy, on the other hand, was providing a way to use Kazaa's network.

    It seems to me that is a major difference. Bnetd is basically competing with Blizzard, and reverse engineering to compete is (or should be) fine. KCEasy is basically providing a way to freeload off of Kazaa. I don't see how they should have a right to do that.

  • Reverse Engineering . . . legal (Score:4, Informative)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @02:57PM (#8999325) Homepage
    Reverse engineering is legal; right is an awfully strong term to apply to it . . . but correct (IANAL . . . standard disclaimers apply). Nolo [nolo.com] has an article [nolo.com] on trade secrets that discusses reverse engineering. Quoted:

    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.

    • Correct me if I'm wrong (seriously), but I was under the impression that this is what the DMCA is all about - you don't have a legal right to do *anything* with the XCEL glue _except_ what the directions say you can do with it.

      Don't most EULAs (in this case I guess an AUP for the case of Sharman, and the essence of the DMCA) specifically say "...you may not reverse-engineer, disassemble..."? Does what you're saying imply that the EULA lawyers/corps are trying to write their own law, as it were, and attemp
      • The DMCA may protect their protocols if the tried to protect their protocols using encryption or other means. But with respect to this argument, the DMCA only protects the copyrighted work and only if it has been protected (encrypted etc.). . .

        If it is encrypted one can reverse engineers it by replicating the functionality with respect to inputs and outputs. If Sharman did not include any attempt to protect their copyrighted work (such as encryption), then the DMCA would not apply (though other laws might

      • Wrong. Only with pharmaceuticals am I only allowed to do what the directions say. I am allowed to use the glue in any way I see fit. Some ways may kill me , others might not, but those directions are merely a reccomended way to get optimal performance out of XCEL Glue.

        If I want to use it as a thickening agent in my food and it kills me, it's not illegal (suicide laws aside), but it's certainly stupid.

        The directions in my car say I should shift every 2500 rpm or so, but if I run it up to 4000 all I'm doing
    • 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.

      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 wo

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3Suns ( 250606 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:02PM (#8999377) Homepage
    ... 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.

  • too bad for Kazaa (Score:3, Informative)

    by sir_cello ( 634395 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:04PM (#8999420)

    Most laws on copyright (e.g. in the UK the CDPA 1988) have _actual_ statutory provisions that allow reverse engineering for interoperability purposes. Of course, as was seen with IM systems, this rapidly becomes an arms race. Kazaa may have sent a C&D, but my strong belief is that it would not be enforceable.

    The question is whether the guy who received it understands his rights or is just going to let himself be brow-beat.
  • Get up off their network, you didn't have permission to be accessing with and/or generating traffic on it. Damn, just because it's FOSS doesn't give the creator the right to access other people's shit.

    • 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

  • Sharman Networks, has sent a Cease and Desist Letter to the maker of KCEasy

    Wouldn't it be funny if KCEasy was a shell company for the **AA, and when Sharman showed up in court to face them...

  • Rights (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Progman3K ( 515744 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:08PM (#8999450)
    >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.

  • Intimidation (Score:3, Insightful)

    by The-Dalai-LLama ( 755919 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:08PM (#8999452) Homepage Journal

    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.

    "I feel that inclusion of FastTrack access with KCeasy is not worth a legal battle between Sharman and myself"

    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...

  • At the end of the post (Score:5, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:08PM (#8999455) Journal
    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?
  • At least I can still get the plugin code through a file sharing network.

  • Reverse Engineering is legal, but not access (Score:5, Informative)

    by EaglesNest ( 524150 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:12PM (#8999511)
    Under U.S. Copyright law, fair use allows reverse engineering of funcational components because they are ideas (or facts) not expression. However, a provisions from our friend the DMCA (17 U.S.C. 1201) makes it illegal to bypass an overt technological protection that restricts (a) access or (b) protects the rights of the author. Think of this as breaking open a safe (illegal) to get to something inside that you're allowed to copy (legal).

    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.


    • The DMCA splits the rights into two "right to access" and "right to copy"; you need to be an authorised user to have a "right to access" a work before you can then have any other rights, such as the "right to copy".

      In terms of reverse engineering, at least in the UK under the CDPA 1988, it only applies if you are already a legitimate right holder of the work in question. In other words, you cannot steal a program and reverse engineer it, but you can purchase and reverse engineer. Also, in the UK, the provi

  • Have the courts ever ruled on something like this? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by StateOfTheUnion ( 762194 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @03:17PM (#8999579) Homepage
    Are there any reviewable court cases that indicate whether a company like Kazaa owns the FastTrack network or not? The FastTrack network doesn't use Kazaa's servers or other resources. It does use Kazaa's technology. Which can be reverse engineered legally (see Nolo's article on trade secrets [nolo.com].

    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.
  • ...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?
  • It's not the only one FOSS P2P program that interacts with Fasttrack networks. MLDonkey [fsf.org] does too (and with a lot more networks), and giFT [sourceforge.net] (is KCEasy based on it?) had that capability too.

    Anyway, think that is a mistake doing that, even leaving the "free speech" argumentation on a side. More clients means more ways to access means more people that is at the very least aware of them, and a far richer network. Of course, they could had seen that a dangerous percent of the clients of that networks weren't the

  • Playground Bullies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Webmoth ( 75878 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:15PM (#9000268) Homepage
    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.

  • Fork KCeasy then wait? (Score:3, Informative)

    by Famatra ( 669740 ) on Wednesday April 28, 2004 @04:17PM (#9000294) Journal

    "I feel that inclusion of FastTrack access with KCeasy is not worth a legal battle between Sharman and myself"

    Couldn't someone, who is willing to fight Sharman Networks, fork KCeasy [sourceforge.net] and then await another letter? Also if you want, you can still access the fasttrack network with a previous version here (0.11 [sourceforge.net]) I think it was 0.12 [sourceforge.net] that was nerfed.

  • Blizzard uses a CDKEY to validate the game is legitamate and not pirated.

    BnetD allows you to play without a CDKEY.

    In fact thats the only thing good about bnetd is stealing Blizzard games.

    Blizzard is one of the few companies that makes quality video games anymore. I don't see why people are up in arms against them.

Slashdot Top Deals

"And remember: Evil will always prevail, because Good is dumb." -- Spaceballs

Close