Ignore 99% of the responses in this thread, particularly any that say "I think...", "It seems fair...", and so on. You're in a legal situation here, if you are worried, contact a lawyer.
Bunk. He spent 2 days on a hobby project with no hopes of ever making any money off of it. It makes no sense to spend time and money consulting a lawyer over this.
If I complied with every request like this, I wouldn't have made a single successful website. You shouldn't be so afraid to stand up for yourself. Entrepreneurs need to have thick skin and not buckle under every little bit of pressure.
Every website you made received requests like these? If you don't mind me asking, what kind of websites do you make? I've never received requests like these myself.
I have been asked to remove profiles, data, images, features, the entire website, the domain, links, the list goes on. Sometimes just a few, sometimes an amount that would cripple the business. Most of the claims are overreaching bullying or ignorance. Sometimes they are just completely out of their mind nut jobs that don't understand how stuff works.
Assuming the posted letter is complete, a lawyer can't really do anything at this point. The letter (or is it actually an email?) doesn't invoke any requirements one is bound by law to obey. One might even say that it's careful not to do so, so I suspect that even though the "Director of Operations" signed it, it was originally written by a lawyer. This would actually be a useful form letter for people who have their underpants on a bit too tight: even if they send it five times a month, it doesn't create any sort of SLAPP liability or anything else that will damage Snapchat in a legal sense. Of course, giving someone 12 hours to comply with anything looks like amateur hour. tlack isn't the only party reluctant to run up billable hours.
IANAL. If I were, I would recommend you start paying me or one of my colleagues to talk with you immediately.
A lawyer can give you legal advice. That is a lawyer's job.
You do not need to wait until you are sued or prosecuted to get advice from a lawyer.
They say "we consider Snaphax to be an unlawful circumvention device under 17 U.S.C. § 1201(a)(1)."
They are implying he would be subject to lawsuit and/or criminal prosecution if he keeps distributing the software.
How likely is that to happen? How risky is it for the guy? How expensive might the defense be, and how much pain might this be for a weekend project?
I'm not really sure. But you know what class of people are expert at answering questions like that? Lawyers.
But, sure, if the poster want to keep it up anyway cause you think it's bullshit and are willing to see what they do next, certainly that's another option. It's potentially a brave and commendable one.
But I wouldn't do it because a bunch of people on HN who don't know what they're talking about told me that since they didn't use some special magic words in the letter, there's "nothing a lawyer can do", what?
> Assuming the posted letter is complete, a lawyer can't really do anything at this point.
A lawyer can analyze the facts of what you have done, and provide you with advice as to whether it is likely to be found to be an anti-circumvention device under the cited section of the DMCA and, if so, what the likely consequences of that are and what steps you can take to mitigate any exposure you might have in that regard (including, if there are any, steps short of taking down the existing offering.)
Of course, you could wait to see if they actually file a suit rather than having a lawyer look at the C&D, but if you do that, then there will be less, not more, that a lawyer can do for you.
...there will be less, not more, that a lawyer can do for you.
At this point in time, OP can take down the repo (but not the 115-and-counting forks thereof), or modify it (someone suggested removing keys issued by Snapchat), or not. How will this set of options change if Snapchat file suit? Of course one must respond to a suit, but couldn't one's response be "ok we've complied with all requests"?
If you're telling me that the suit could allege OP owes Snapchat money for his/her misdeeds, that's true, but it's always true, even after one complies with the sort of namby-pamby "C&D" we see here.
If Snapchat files suit, all of the options that might have avoided a lawsuit are now off-limits. Assuming that's a non-empty set, a strict subset of the choices currently available will be available at that point in time.
C&D's are usually courtesies to avoid prosecution, rather than legally required. (DMCA takedown notices have particular effect with regard to safe harbor, which -- because the DMCA is involved -- may be what you are thinking of, but this isn't a safe harbor issue; it would be if they were trying to get github to take it down, but that's not what is going on here.)
Which specific aspect of this package constitutes an "unlawful circumvention device"? If the Snaphax class instantiated a different low-level class from SnaphaxApi, that was written to a slightly different API, would it still circumvent? If so, why must the entire package be taken down? If the code here was used but pointed at a proxy, would the distribution of code itself still have limited commercial purpose and be designed or produced primarily for the purpose of circumvention? The actual USC section (Schaffer has the wrong subsub: it's (a)(2) (and maybe (b)(1)) not (a)(1) that governs "traffic in any... device") refers extensively to copyrighted works: what copyrighted works are referenced here? Do Snapchat claim copyright in their users' images? If not, what do they mean here?
Without specific answers to many of the foregoing questions, this message amounts to asking OP to forego all use and value of work that OP has personally performed, merely on Snapchat's say-so. So, actual meritorious C&D's require some actual work on the part of the sender. This letter took some knucklehead five minutes, so that's about what it's worth.
C&D's are usually courtesies to avoid...
...the expense of an actual lawsuit. In many cases a vague and overbroad (see above) message is mere bullying, attempting to imply threats that would be impossible to articulate or enforce. Papers filed in a court are held to a higher standard, and penalties are enforced. The fact that OP might be well-advised to retain counsel in response to this turd is an indictment of the USA legal system.
I don't think that is true. Plenty of companies are sued without notice for patent infringement. It's not generally the case that you have to notify the parties to a suit before initiating it.
>12 hours to comply with anything looks like amateur hour.
For what it is worth, we were given a few days in a cease and desist letter recently and our $250/hr lawyer laughed at the idea of just a few days notice. 12 hours or even a few days now doesn't seems serious at all.
The quote below is decidedly "legal" in nature. The meta-question of whether the author is interested in moral guidance or legal advice is immaterial, as the framework within which Snapchat is operating is legal.
> I am under the impression that reverse engineering is still protected under fair use doctrines. Is this the case? How should I respond, if at all?
Speaking as someone who has been involved in an arduous civil matter for the last four years, matmaroon's advice would be well heeded.
I would also like to point out to tlack that prior to having been dragged in to a civil suit four years ago, there was no shortage of people (pseudo legal professionals and otherwise) that were all to happy to shout at me with a similar refrain:
"There's no way they can sue you for that."
"No way a judge will even allow this case."
"This case will be dismissed after the first hearing."
When someone sends you a letter like this, the first decision you have to make is "how much is this thing worth to me". Once you've decided that it's worth fighting for, your best counsel will come from a lawyer, who can help you determine the thing that really matters: how much it's going to cost you.
I guess that's what I'm confused about.. No legal action has been taken (or even threat of legal action), so isn't that overkill at this point? Seems like something that would require a few hours of advice at most. Perhaps I'm vastly underestimating the legal ramifications here.
