17 ms·

A similar thing is happening to me. I worked on something for 3 years which I give away for free to help people and a thief took my software, ran it through ai

A similar thing is happening to me. I worked on something for 3 years which I give away for free to help people and a thief took my software, ran it through ai to rebrand everything and relaunched as their own app. Unfortunately the ai missed a few Easter eggs I had hidden so the theft is undeniable. Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They refuse to look at or arbitrate. So now I'm on to fighting this in court on principal which is going to be expensive. Theft is only going to become worse. It's already so easy and it's going to become even easier. We aren't prepared for what's ahead.

cromka 3mo ago
Crazy shit. You should absolutely write about it, though. Stories like these need publicity to actually have people realize all type of IP will get affected.
- sieabahlpark 3mo ago
  [dead]
kstrauser 3mo ago
Name and shame. I'd be furious if I were one of the thief's tricked customers.
- pfcd 3mo ago
  I doubt people that are already systematically stealing material can't hide, or forge arbitrary identities. Naming and shaming doesn't work for such attack vectors, it's a social strategy for people that have a real identity established and are making money out of that, not for ephemeral identities of such scammers.
- vkou 3mo ago
  You would, most consumers wouldn't.
saghm 3mo ago
> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. This is especially egregious in Google's case given how trigger happy they are with pulling YouTube videos with a simple claim that something is infringing. I guess unless you can lobby them at the level of the music industry, their default policy is to do nothing.
- dylan604 3mo ago
  Let's consider an independent dev making claims vs the army of lawyers from RIAA/MPAA type claimants. Which one do you think evilCorps will pay attention to?
  - nikanj 3mo ago
    The lawyers from evilCorps are on a first-name basis with the key lawyers from the copyright lobby, because their fates are fully intertwined
  - rustcleaner 3mo ago
    This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant. If little guy beats the big guy defendant, little guy should walk away with millions or billions. If big guy wins against the little guy defendant, it's just hundreds or thousands. It makes relatively poor individuals who can't afford a team of effective lawyers lawsuit proof, while making those who can wage effective lawfare juicy targets if they so much as fudge the line with the outside of their shoes!
    - dylan604 3mo ago
      > with the outside of their shoes! But it's the outside of the boot that lets you bend it. (yeah, I'm watching a World Cup match as I type this)
    - fsckboy 3mo ago
      >This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant. yes! and we need to add the death penalty to the list of punishments for children, because what matters is not the size of the crime, but the harshness of enforcement, that's the real deterrent, arewerite!?
carlosjobim 3mo ago
You can't steal something which is free. This is what you should expect if you give away stuff for free to anybody who happens on it. To me it seems that FOSS people take perverse pleasure in these kind of things. It's easy to prepare for what is ahead: Get yourself out of the filthy FOSS swamp and start charging a fair price for your work from real customers. That is something everybody benefits from and it is also dignified for everybody involved.
- pfcd 3mo ago
  "FOSS" doesn't mean that you cannot monetize your program. It's just that people have taken different routes historically.
  - carlosjobim 3mo ago
    Sell the program or give it away for free, to me both is fine. But to release the source code for free, then complain that other people take it and sell it - that's ridiculous. If I give away my secret sauce recipe, I have no right to complain if somebody puts it in a bottle and sells it. Either you keep it to yourself or you don't.
    - derektank 3mo ago
      > Either you keep it to yourself or you don't. Governments have presented us with a third option, intellectual property, which allows a creator to release their intellectual contributions publicly while preventing someone else from reproducing it. Violating the terms of an open source license are generally considered intellectual property violations and allow the creator to seek damages.
      - carlosjobim 3mo ago
        Good luck with that. If you throw your wallet onto a busy street corner, then by the law nobody is allowed to take it either. But cops will tell you that they have more important things to take care of than victims who take every measurable action at hand to make themselves victims.
eboy 3mo ago
[dead]
leni536 3mo ago
> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They deserve to also be sued too for the infringement. I don't think safe-harbor applies if they don't act on a valid notice.
- tzs 3mo ago
  Usually they do act, I believe. If they are following the DMCA they take the alleged infringing content down and notify the party that uploaded that content. If that party files a claim stating that it is not infringing the host is required to forward that claim you, and then wait a short time (something like 10 business days, but I don't remember the exact time). At the end of that wait if you have not provided proof that you filed a lawsuit against the alleged infringer the host restores the content. If you do provide such proof the content stays down until the court resolves the matter. If you do not provide proof that you have sued and the content goes back up and then later you do so, you would need to get a preliminary injunction or similar from the court ordering the host to take it down. Some big platforms (Google definitely) use their own systems in parallel to DMCA, so your experience with them (on both the copyright owner side and the copyright infringer side) can be quite a bit different if you are trying to deal with an infringement through that, but if you go through the DMCA channel that will work. If you aren't ready to sue though and the infringer counter claims the material will go back up. You can think of the purpose of the DMCA in the case user content hosting as being to get the host out of the loop. The advantages for the copyright owner of going through DMCA first instead of just suing right off the bat are that (1) in the case of accidental infringement the infringer probably will not counter claim and so one simple DMCA claim by you gets the content taken down and resolves the matter, (2) if they do counter claim, you get a copy of that which includes contact information which lets you know who to sue, and (3) the content will stay down until the suit is resolved whereas if you sued first it would likely stay up until you could get the court to issue a preliminary injunction.
bonoboTP 3mo ago
If you released it under a free software license, then all they seem to have not done properly is putting an attribution text in their software. But you did not specify what license you used which already makes me doubt if you have the correct mental model around free software and it's ethos. Who makes money on what is not the main concern in free software ideology. It's a side question. It's the four freedoms that are the main points. Then there is the question of copyleft but you didn't specify your license so I won't elaborate on that. But even that doesn't block a rebranded release for sale.
- phkahler 3mo ago
  "Gave away for free" does not mean they did so under a Free Software license. One could just put a copyright notice with NO license and they'd be in violation of the copyright.
  - leephillips 3mo ago
    They would be in violation even if there were no copyright notice. You own the copyright to anything you create; no notice required.
ouraf 3mo ago
Mail the EFF

cromka 3mo ago

Crazy shit. You should absolutely write about it, though. Stories like these need publicity to actually have people realize all type of IP will get affected.

sieabahlpark 3mo ago
[dead]

kstrauser 3mo ago

Name and shame. I'd be furious if I were one of the thief's tricked customers.

pfcd 3mo ago
I doubt people that are already systematically stealing material can't hide, or forge arbitrary identities. Naming and shaming doesn't work for such attack vectors, it's a social strategy for people that have a real identity established and are making money out of that, not for ephemeral identities of such scammers.
vkou 3mo ago
You would, most consumers wouldn't.

saghm 3mo ago

> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. This is especially egregious in Google's case given how trigger happy they are with pulling YouTube videos with a simple claim that something is infringing. I guess unless you can lobby them at the level of the music industry, their default policy is to do nothing.

dylan604 3mo ago
Let's consider an independent dev making claims vs the army of lawyers from RIAA/MPAA type claimants. Which one do you think evilCorps will pay attention to?
- nikanj 3mo ago
  The lawyers from evilCorps are on a first-name basis with the key lawyers from the copyright lobby, because their fates are fully intertwined
- rustcleaner 3mo ago
  This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant. If little guy beats the big guy defendant, little guy should walk away with millions or billions. If big guy wins against the little guy defendant, it's just hundreds or thousands. It makes relatively poor individuals who can't afford a team of effective lawyers lawsuit proof, while making those who can wage effective lawfare juicy targets if they so much as fudge the line with the outside of their shoes!
  - dylan604 3mo ago
    > with the outside of their shoes! But it's the outside of the boot that lets you bend it. (yeah, I'm watching a World Cup match as I type this)
  - fsckboy 3mo ago
    >This is why awards need to be based on % of total assets or revenue of the defendant. yes! and we need to add the death penalty to the list of punishments for children, because what matters is not the size of the crime, but the harshness of enforcement, that's the real deterrent, arewerite!?

carlosjobim 3mo ago

You can't steal something which is free. This is what you should expect if you give away stuff for free to anybody who happens on it. To me it seems that FOSS people take perverse pleasure in these kind of things. It's easy to prepare for what is ahead: Get yourself out of the filthy FOSS swamp and start charging a fair price for your work from real customers. That is something everybody benefits from and it is also dignified for everybody involved.

pfcd 3mo ago
"FOSS" doesn't mean that you cannot monetize your program. It's just that people have taken different routes historically.
- carlosjobim 3mo ago
  Sell the program or give it away for free, to me both is fine. But to release the source code for free, then complain that other people take it and sell it - that's ridiculous. If I give away my secret sauce recipe, I have no right to complain if somebody puts it in a bottle and sells it. Either you keep it to yourself or you don't.
  - derektank 3mo ago
    > Either you keep it to yourself or you don't. Governments have presented us with a third option, intellectual property, which allows a creator to release their intellectual contributions publicly while preventing someone else from reproducing it. Violating the terms of an open source license are generally considered intellectual property violations and allow the creator to seek damages.
    - carlosjobim 3mo ago
      Good luck with that. If you throw your wallet onto a busy street corner, then by the law nobody is allowed to take it either. But cops will tell you that they have more important things to take care of than victims who take every measurable action at hand to make themselves victims.

eboy 3mo ago

[dead]

leni536 3mo ago

> Google and Apple are useless for dmca unless you have a court order. They deserve to also be sued too for the infringement. I don't think safe-harbor applies if they don't act on a valid notice.

tzs 3mo ago
Usually they do act, I believe. If they are following the DMCA they take the alleged infringing content down and notify the party that uploaded that content. If that party files a claim stating that it is not infringing the host is required to forward that claim you, and then wait a short time (something like 10 business days, but I don't remember the exact time). At the end of that wait if you have not provided proof that you filed a lawsuit against the alleged infringer the host restores the content. If you do provide such proof the content stays down until the court resolves the matter. If you do not provide proof that you have sued and the content goes back up and then later you do so, you would need to get a preliminary injunction or similar from the court ordering the host to take it down. Some big platforms (Google definitely) use their own systems in parallel to DMCA, so your experience with them (on both the copyright owner side and the copyright infringer side) can be quite a bit different if you are trying to deal with an infringement through that, but if you go through the DMCA channel that will work. If you aren't ready to sue though and the infringer counter claims the material will go back up. You can think of the purpose of the DMCA in the case user content hosting as being to get the host out of the loop. The advantages for the copyright owner of going through DMCA first instead of just suing right off the bat are that (1) in the case of accidental infringement the infringer probably will not counter claim and so one simple DMCA claim by you gets the content taken down and resolves the matter, (2) if they do counter claim, you get a copy of that which includes contact information which lets you know who to sue, and (3) the content will stay down until the suit is resolved whereas if you sued first it would likely stay up until you could get the court to issue a preliminary injunction.

bonoboTP 3mo ago

If you released it under a free software license, then all they seem to have not done properly is putting an attribution text in their software. But you did not specify what license you used which already makes me doubt if you have the correct mental model around free software and it's ethos. Who makes money on what is not the main concern in free software ideology. It's a side question. It's the four freedoms that are the main points. Then there is the question of copyleft but you didn't specify your license so I won't elaborate on that. But even that doesn't block a rebranded release for sale.

phkahler 3mo ago
"Gave away for free" does not mean they did so under a Free Software license. One could just put a copyright notice with NO license and they'd be in violation of the copyright.
- leephillips 3mo ago
  They would be in violation even if there were no copyright notice. You own the copyright to anything you create; no notice required.

ouraf 3mo ago

Mail the EFF