linuxmemes

hideshow 9 child comments

parent

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 3 points 4 weeks ago (8 children)

The way I unterstand it, at least in European practice, the code itself is copyrighted, as in, the actual text, not the concept behing it. Decompiled source is not the same as original source, it goes through rounds of compiler optimisations and the process of reversing that includes a lot of guesswork. So, in practice, decompiling and working on the decompiled source was at least tolerated, probably because it would have been a grey area at worst.

hideshow 8 child comments

parent

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago (2 children)

In terms of whether the 'clean room' approach is as critical in Europe or not, I can't be sure. It might be more permissable for someone to use a decompile as a reference and also directly work on a replacement. However I'm pretty sure starting with a decompile of proprietary software as a direct codebase would run afoul of issues.

Otherwise, imagine you have an HEVC encoded rip of a 4K blu ray. You transcode it to AV1. The bytes are totally different, and even the resultant frames are likely not even pixel for pixel identical. I don't think copyright law would deem that not a violation, regardless of jurisdiction.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 4 weeks ago (1 child)

Transcoding would not be a violation, but in order to rip it in the first place, you had to bypass technological restrictions built into the disc and the drive. Under section 1201 of the DMCA, the creation or sharing of software that can do thatis a felony punishable by half a million dollars and six months in prison for a first offense.

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 2 points 4 weeks ago

Resharing your transcode would be a violation, even assuming the original was somehow an unencumbered HEVC. Ripping a VHS and encoding would still be a violation even without any DMCA complications

parent

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 4 weeks ago (4 children)

That is explicitly prohibited by virtually all proprietary software license agreements.

hideshow 4 child comments

parent

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 4 weeks ago (3 children)

Which makes it a breach of contract, but not illegal.

hideshow 3 child comments

parent

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 4 weeks ago (2 children)

I have news for you about breaches of contract. They can be sued over.

Also DMCA 1201 is a thing which often makes reverse engineering a felony.

hideshow 2 child comments

parent

[–] LH0ezVT@sh.itjust.works 1 point 3 weeks ago (1 child)

I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, as should be obvious by me being a random dude on the internet.

you can kind of sue about breaches of contract, but that's civil law, not criminal law, so not illegal
unless I profit from that or use it to defame , they might have a hard time demonstrating their damages from that breach
I didn't sign any contract with over their firmware anyway, and it will be hard to prove for them that I did, so kiss my ass
I'm not in the US, neither is so the DMCA can kiss my ass as well
there are people who do this kind of work above-board, mostly in academic contexts, with their name attached to it, and as far as I can see they still walk around freely

parent

hideshow 1 child comment

[–] AVincentInSpace@pawb.social 1 point 3 weeks ago

you might want to double check your country's laws. back when the DMCA was first passed the US was also in talks with a bunch of other nations and sneakily made it a condition of doing any trade with the US that they had to adopt basically a copy paste of the DMCA. if you're in Canada for example it's called the Copyright Modernization Act. If you're in the EU it's called CISD 2001.