zlacker

>>andyly+(OP)
The takedown request is based on

> MNAO analyzed some of the code and determined that the code provides functionality same as what is currently in Apple App Store and Google Play App Store.

Is this really legal? Because in my mind, providing the same functionality does not violate copyright, since the actual intellectual material is new. And I don't think Mazda has a patent on the ability to control your vehicle over an API.

>>sp1rit+ga
If they just provide the same functionality, no. Mazda should lose this under Google v. Oracle. However, reverse engineering is dangerous. They surely read the copyrighted decompiled code. The test is whether the expressive elements of bdr99's implementation are substantially similar.

>>mminer+Ac
This might be the case, but how could Mazda even prove this? Unless they communicate in some weird proprietary binary protocol I could imagine that the API (especially if it's just some JSON/XML REST stuff) can be reverse engineered by MitM traffic analysis.

>>sp1rit+pe
If it's HTTPS stuff, they might be claiming that it falls under DMCA 1201 shenanigans.

> (A) No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/1201

As I understand it, car manufacturers prevent independent repair shops from lawfully obtaining some of the diagnostics information in the onboard computer by encrypting it with a key that sits on the very same drive. Said encryption is the "technological measure that effectively controls access" and using the key to decrypt it is "circumvention" -- naturally, of the "effective" access control.

(https://www.law.cornell.edu/definitions/uscode.php?def_id=17... to “circumvent a technological measure” means to descramble a scrambled work, to decrypt an encrypted work, or otherwise to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate, or impair a technological measure, without the authority of the copyright owner)

Mazda might be interpreting the SSL certificate as a similar measure and therefore use of the certificate to decrypt traffic as a similar violation.

>>lcnPyl+zg
From the posted notice[1], they answered "No" to the question "Do you claim to have any technological measures in place to control access to your copyrighted content? Please see our Complaints about Anti-Circumvention Technology if you are unsure." Is that the same thing you are referencing?

[1] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2023/10/2023-10-1...

>>wuuza+gi
Yep, sounds like it, which rules that out. Good to know that it might be on the served notice; I'll look for that next time.