DMCA Takedown of GitHub repos of HTC device ROMs

Skripka

Skripka

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Feb 5, 2012
Messages
10,791
http://www.androidpolice.com/2013/0...repositories-some-cyanogenmod-repos-affected/

If you're an HTC user...and wondering WTH is your GitHub for your device....thank the DMCA.

Android Police said:
A French image processing company by the name of DxO Labs has filed a DMCA takedown request targeting 12 GitHub repositories containing device-specific code for ROMs, most of them maintained by CyanogenMod team members. The notice is vague, only citing:
[3] I have a good faith belief that the file downloads identified below (by URL) are unlawful under these copyright laws because among other things, the files circumvent effective access controls and/or copyright protection measures;
[4] Reason:
Content Type: "Custom Firmware" files

Violation(s): Trafficking a device that circumvents effective access controls and/or trafficking a device that circumvents effective copyright protection measures.
The likely culprit has been identified as libDxOAF.so, a file that would have come from an OEM's stock ROM and is almost certainly used to operate the company's Auto Focus Speed-Up feature. The takedown does not just target projects with the offending binary, but also those that merely name it within their scripts and configurations. Here is a list of affected devices:
HTC EVO 4G LTE (Jet)
HTC One XL
HTC One S (Ville)
HTC One X (Evita)
HTC Droid DNA (DLX)
Motorola Photon Q 4G LTE XT897 (Asanti)
Click to expand...
 
...and this is why I will stick with Samsung (for now). As bad as I want the HTC One, HTC has served a few take downs recently. Now these fukkin french guys are in on it too? Shyte. At least the SGS4 is announced tomorrow.
 
Who is this DxO Labs company, what do they produce, and what phones can I buy that include absolutely none of their products? I'm boycotting.
 
dandragonrage said:
Who is this DxO Labs company, what do they produce, and what phones can I buy that include absolutely none of their products? I'm boycotting.
Click to expand...

Short version: They're a imaging software company, that specialize in correcting optical problems....odds are any of the devices listed are the only Android usage of their products...otherwise they would have had more GitHub DMCA takedowns put out. In fairness, DxO isn't exactly in the wrong here-it is just when the only tool you have is a hammer (DMCA takedown)...every problem looks like a nail. It would be one thing if they tookdown anyone actually using their libraries...but it looks like anyone who even mentions their library in a file got hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs
 
Skripka said:
Short version: They're a imaging software company, that specialize in correcting optical problems....odds are any of the devices listed are the only Android usage of their products...otherwise they would have had more GitHub DMCA takedowns put out. In fairness, DxO isn't exactly in the wrong here-it is just when the only tool you have is a hammer (DMCA takedown)...every problem looks like a nail. It would be one thing if they tookdown anyone actually using their libraries...but it looks like anyone who even mentions their library in a file got hit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DxO_Labs
Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. However considering that all the phones this driver works on already have the licensing fee for the driver covered by the OEM, and considering the driver is useless on other phones, they ARE absolutely in the wrong here, and I hope they get smacked down if they press the issue. A custom OS on a phone for which the licensing fee was paid for the driver does NOT remove the right to use the driver. Imagine hardware OEMs only allowing you to use the driver on the OS that came installed with your PC. If you reinstall, upgrade, or customize, they won't let you use the driver for the hardware you paid for. Would you accept that? DxO is currently trying to do that for phones. Do you still think it's acceptable?

I'm boycotting them, and any phone that uses their crap.
 
dandragonrage said:
Thanks for the info. However considering that all the phones this driver works on already have the licensing fee for the driver covered by the OEM, and considering the driver is useless on other phones, they ARE absolutely in the wrong here, and I hope they get smacked down if they press the issue. A custom OS on a phone for which the licensing fee was paid for the driver does NOT remove the right to use the driver. Imagine hardware OEMs only allowing you to use the driver on the OS that came installed with your PC. If you reinstall, upgrade, or customize, they won't let you use the driver for the hardware you paid for. Would you accept that? DxO is currently trying to do that for phones. Do you still think it's acceptable?

I'm boycotting them, and any phone that uses their crap.
Click to expand...

This one isn't about your usage as an end user...it is about 3rd party devs who rather wrongly are (re)distributing their drivers without their consent. Now in reality, they're DMCAing anyone who simply mentions their driver in code and taking down their entire GitHub rather than going after the offending driver files themselves....but DxO isn't really in the wrong here ethically as to why they're doing this, but in how they're doing what they're doing they're using a sledgehammer where only tweezers are needed.

IMHO.
 
Skripka said:
This one isn't about your usage as an end user...it is about 3rd party devs who rather wrongly are (re)distributing their drivers without their consent. Now in reality, they're DMCAing anyone who simply mentions their driver in code and taking down their entire GitHub rather than going after the offending driver files themselves....but DxO isn't really in the wrong here ethically as to why they're doing this, but in how they're doing what they're doing they're using a sledgehammer where only tweezers are needed.

IMHO.
Click to expand...

I'll start boycotting Intel or anyone else the second they go after Station Drivers, just like I will boycott DxO who are still in the moral wrong regardless of what you said. Redistributing drivers that are only useful for people who would have legally paid the licensing fee anyway is ALWAYS okay. Only when people start reverse engineering and stealing technology out of the drivers to use for competing hardware would DxO be partially in the right.

DxO can screw off. They've got no moral leg to stand on here. Legal leg, sure, because the law is all sorts of screwed up as we all know.
 
dandragonrage said:
I'll start boycotting Intel or anyone else the second they go after Station Drivers, just like I will boycott DxO who are still in the moral wrong regardless of what you said. Redistributing drivers that are only useful for people who would have legally paid the licensing fee anyway is ALWAYS okay.

DxO can screw off. They've got no moral leg to stand on here. Legal leg, sure, because the law is all sorts of screwed up as we all know.
Click to expand...

I think most EULAs and TOS, and even the GPL would disagree with you on the last part....especially given that the people involved here probably didn't give credit to who actually wrote that driver, nor seek permission to redistribute it.
 
Skripka said:
I think most EULAs and TOS, and even the GPL would disagree with you on the last part....especially given that the people involved here probably didn't give credit to who actually wrote that driver, nor seek permission to redistribute it.
Click to expand...

Like I said, whether they exploit the F-ed up copyright law or not, they are in the moral wrong here, and they deserve to be boycotted (yes, I know that the vast majority of people don't care about boycotts, which I feel is a shame, but it won't stop me from doing my capitalistic duty of helping regulate the market using my wallet).

If you're okay with Station Drivers, Guru3d and similar sites that host PC drivers, then you should be against DxO here. Would you defend Intel or Nvidia or AMD or whoever if they started going after all driver-hosting sites (which can only HELP those companies) just because they are technically legally able to stop the distribution?

Distributing the drivers does no harm. DxO is in the wrong.

P.S. I'm sure HTC didn't add DxO to some "credits" list, either. Nobody should need to do that. No end user knows who or what DxO is, and that's fine, they don't need to, and DxO doesn't need that in order to get paid by HTC, either.
 
Last edited:
You can save a copy of libDxOAF.so and reuse it, but not distribute it. So all they have to do is not include libDxOAF.so in the custom rom.

It not much different from Google disallowing its Apps (such as Play Store) to be distributed from within the custom rom.
 
CHANG3D said:
You can save a copy of libDxOAF.so and reuse it, but not distribute it. So all they have to do is not include libDxOAF.so in the custom rom.

It not much different from Google disallowing its Apps (such as Play Store) to be distributed from within the custom rom.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

They'll simply have another zip file that you have to flash for those devices or they'll just drop official support.

Still shitty of DxO to do since it's not hurting them but it is their right.
 
Legally they are in the right, but they are still dicks for doing it. It is hard to imagine any real harm is being done to them by these ROMs distributing the file for use on devices that already have licences for the binary. So in the balance of things they have just upset a bunch of android developers and caused HTC a PR issue for what exactly?
 
Wait what? Company protects their asset with the options available and the internet tools come out saying that they are wrong.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Wait what? Company protects their asset with the options available and the internet tools come out saying that they are wrong.
Click to expand...

Protecting what from what? Protecting their driver from being distributed in the form of a custom rom to users, 100% of who have a license to use said driver? Would you say the same for Guru3d or Station Drivers or any other third-party driver hosting site as well? You're ridiculous.
 
dandragonrage said:
Protecting what from what? Protecting their driver from being distributed in the form of a custom rom to users, 100% of who have a license to use said driver? Would you say the same for Guru3d or Station Drivers or any other third-party driver hosting site as well? You're ridiculous.
Click to expand...
Some companies in this scenario believe that they are protecting their customers. What if the custom rom has a modified driver that is malicious? Etc. Trusted driver hosting sites do check and verify the drivers; maybe that's why they aren't being sued for distributing a driver.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Wait what? Company protects their asset with the options available and the internet tools come out saying that they are wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm not saying they are wrong. I'm saying DxO are douchebags for going from zero to nuclear without first contacting CyanogenMod and seeing if there is another solution.

Hell, it sounds like not all of the ROMs have the DxO driver in them... The original RUU may have, but the subsequent ROMs did not - only the name of the driver somewhere in the text of the ROM. Just a string of letters that didn't get removed by CyanogenMod during a Mnt Dew fueled night of editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top