Netfront Application Hacking Cease and Desist Order

Guess I wasn't clear enough. Access Co. has absolutely nothing to do with this. This is entirely about the rights of HPC:Factor to control the content of the forums. The fact that they have chosen to do this at the request of Access changes nothing. If C:Amie declares that, from this moment forward, all vowels are banned from this site, thn y wll hv t typ lk ths. This is a privately owned and operated forum, and they can restrict discussions as they see fit.

Clearly, you disagree with their decision to comply with Access' request. That's fine. But, you insist on framing this discussion in terms of Access (the makers of Netfront) restricting discussions and so forth. It's not like Access has taken over management of HPC:Factor, or they've sent the Yakuza over to visit C:Amie and break his legs if he doesn't co-operate. (At least, I don't *think* they're threatening to break his legs. Are they?) They have every right to request such conversations be prohibited, and HPC:Factor has the right to grant or refuse that request, until and unless a judge says otherwise. Access also has the right to request a judge to determine if HPC:Factor does indeed have the right to refuse their request. In order to maintain good relations with Access and avoid lengthy and potentially expensive litigation, HPC:Factor has chosen to grant that request. There is nothing more sinister going on here than that.

As I said, you're always welcome to compile the information on Netfront hacking that is available, and create your own website with that information. If and when Access requests you take the site down or remove the information, you can tell them to take a leap and call your lawyer. As I also said, you might even win in a lawsuit. Go ahead and stick it to the man if you like, but don't equate someone's decision not to fight with a conspiracy or strong-arm tactics or whatever.

Let

It

Go

No threats of bodily harm received. As developers we are simply honoring the request of fellow developers.

No smoking gun.

No grassy knoll

No alien babies

You sure about that last part? I mean, alien babies could explain a lot of things around here...

Unless Chris is hiding the little bugger from me...

So you're not really gonna turn me in to the Chinese Government if I discuss this issue elsewhere?

No idea what that means. I don't think we'd even notice if you discuss this elsewhere, let alone care.

Had a heart to heart discussion with Caveman recently...

Caveman wonders if something is malfunctioning in his hpc...because everytime he views the opening post on this thread of the D&C order...he just doesn't see all the smiley faces, blown kisses, and huggy hug emoticons that some of those lovebirds (caveman's term) above must be seeing on theirs. Caveman...he's a simple guy...says further:

Can someone please help tTakwu...explain the Chinese Gov. internet censorship controversy with Google?

Then maybe explain the Jim Crow (EULA-like) Laws "legal" in the Southern US...until a few decades past.

Caveman says Access may be able to tell us (hpc-ers) to ride in the back of the bus (accept software as is)...and that we can't ever ride in the (net) front of the bus ...but they sure as heck can't tell a caveman he can't discuss what its like to ride in the front of the bus or how to get to the front of the bus...or even discuss how to tweak his appearance so he can ride in the (net)front of the bus... You see...they actually have to find him, Caveman, actually siting in the front of the bus.. all tweaked up or not... Demanding his Web "master" hunt down and place in chains caveman's every post (or chain every caveman,women,or child to a cyber-post)...that might possibly be in one's wildest state of imaginary paranoia misconstrued as disrespectful of the software plantation owner's "rights"is what caveman calls abusing the intent of the law. That his (web)master, at first startled and quaking, now grins with a twinkle in the eye and grabs the bullwhip, claims it's actually his whole idea, and does exactly that...well...

Caveman knows he can tell anyone he wishes that he encountered these issues on this public hpc site...as his concerns relate to himself only as he seeks clarification on this nebulous issue.

Caveman likes this site, the group who support it and make it possible, and those who participate in the threads...he enjoys a lively debate and hopes his caveman views do not strike others as too unacceptably lowly and unevolved...

Well, that's a caveman for you...

All the best

i dont seem to receive a reply here either.

i guess thats just how the world is... ;P

(to this:

)

Being the wife of one of the owners I can attest to the fact that this site has no income whatsoever. There is nothing in the way of funding a lawsuit or even to hire an attorney. I have very limited knowledge on this whole issue but it appears to me that it is simply not worth fighting.

If joval wants to make a go of it on his own forums then I say: more power to you!

100% Free Forum Hosting
Create your own forum instantly!
Unlimited bandwidth & posting.
www.forumsland.com

joval,
Like I said, I believe no one here cares about what you say elsewhere. I do not need any explanation about the Chinese Goverment censorship. However I am in desperate need of an explanation why you would think anyone on this site would do anything about what you say somewhere else. Either that's a very bad joke, or a very bad delusion about your importance.


Access is not telling you that you cannot discuss it. They are saying you should not help others "ride in the front". In this case, by telling others exactly how to do it, or even provide the resources to do so. They told the owners of a place that such activities (helping others "ride in front" ) have happened at their place. The owners have always set in the rules of this place that any discussions about "riding in front" is not permitted. It indeed was not Access' idea. The owners also have no control of what these visitors do outside this place. All the owners can do is ask that the visitors follow the owners' rules while they are visiting here.

Depending on your definition of "public", this may not be your idea of a "public site". This is a privately owned website with its own rules. It may be open to the public to visit, but that does not mean the public can do whatever they want against the owners' wishes while visiting here.

Edited by takwu 2007-09-08 2:16 AM

Interesting discussion.

As a side note to what most of the discussion has been about, in copyright law punitive damages awarded are almost universally based on financial loss. In other words, financial loss must first be proven, and then the punitive damages awarded are based off of it.

From what I have read in this case there has been no financial loss associated with the hack - in fact, it appears to have made money for the company! My own opinion (sic) is that a judge would view such a case before him rather darkly, that he be asked to provide a conviction in a case of financial gain by the plaintiffs.

LOL


I like this comment a lot

The fact of the matter is that this is correct. You could end up losing the case but without any financial penalty. Sometimes it can actually be a $1.00 award.

The problem is that the cost of fighting and defending a case such as this is exorbitant, and even if you win, you lose.

Just my $0.02

Len

You're quite right Leonard, we lose - though I know at least for myself I will never buy anything from Access Co. ever again. They lost my business, and the business of anyone else I have told this story to as well.

There is right, and there is wrong. There are laws to protect people from harm, and intellectual property rights serve a just purpose - however, as I stated above there was no malice nor attempt to infringe in the case of this hack. The letter of the law was violated but not the spirit. Access felt that their rights were infringed on, and their response was to alienate potential customers who HAD paid them money and only wanted to use what they had bought. Why not simply quietly include HPC functionality into their products? It appears to be simple enough, and the opportunity was certainly obvious enough. The action they chose was to literally show their customers contempt, which does not show very good business sense, IMO.

Yeah, they won - but they also lost, in my humble opinion.