Nah, I don’t blame the formality. What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete.
What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them.
Is there no way to disobey in a productive way? Or is our only choice to agree to being bullied into submission for pointless reasons?
> What seems true is that both ipfs and blockchain technologies will make these legal tools obsolete.
I doubt it. More likely, it will make it easier to get yourself into hot water.
Committing a tort (in this case, violating the terms of a license agreement) is one thing, and, while lawyers might word their comments strongly, they're leaving you a very easy out here.
Committing a tort that can't be undone, but doing it on some sort of indelible public record, is probably just ensuring that you will get dragged into expensive legal proceedings. The current law still says that they have to defend their copyright in order to keep their copyright, so you won't really have left them with any other choice.
While I agree with your post, it isn’t true that they have to defend copyright to keep it. That is trademarks, which is a completely different form of IP protection.
I mean, as soon as those docs are out of date, which will happen naturally and probably pretty quickly, you will be providing access to out of date/wrong documentation....and that will hurt the developer directly.
Just let them be the source of truth for documentation about the SDK. Honestly, its best for everyone concerned.
> What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion?
If your name is still attached you will still get these letters. Because they will continue to try and show they are protecting their IP.
> As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them.
Then that would be your IP which you'd be free to distribute. You won't receive the same letter again, but you may be breaking an NDA and the terms of which may apply.
Why do you think that ipfs and/or blockchain is going to change how copying IP works?
You realise that this post right here will be used as evidence of your intent to keep doing this, right?
You are getting no support for your position (albeit some sympathy) and seem intent on digging a bigger hole for yourself.
Yes, they will take you to court, yes will lose, yes they may impose penalties, and yes if you keep posting things like this those penalties could potentially include court enforceable bans from the use of IPFS.
You're in a situation where you are going to loose from a legal perspective, and (IMHO) nothing about your case makes it a particular interesting one to publicly demonstrate injustice or problems with how copyright works, which is why making a stand out of it looks like a waste of time and money.
If your goal is to widely/permanently make something accessible that the rightsholder doesn't want you to share, posting it under a real identity on a platform that'll enforce copyright really isn't the way to go.
> At no point have I been more likely to convert to a free software zealot.
Free Software doesn't mean "take other people's non-free work and do whatever you want with it". If you believe FOSS advocates will have any more sympathy for you, you're in for a rude awakening.
Can confirm, as a FOSS developer and advocate with zero tolerance for the kind of petulant disregard for the ethics of sharing and consent being displayed by op.
What if we were to set up a project in response to this that made the Magic Leap API docs available in a distributed fashion? As well as a technical breakdown of everything that can be learned from them.
Is there no way to disobey in a productive way? Or is our only choice to agree to being bullied into submission for pointless reasons?