Packet capture data about instax_api

[jpwsutton]

Hi Chaps,

Thanks for your interest in this, after a bit of a search myself, I can see how this project is in a bit of a legal grey area EFF Reverse Engineering FAQ

As such, I've made this repository private for now until we can be sure that I / we wouldn't get in any trouble with Fujifilm. I want to make sure that this is done by the book so am currently looking for some legal advice as well.

Ideally I'd love for Fujifilm to be aware / happy about the existence of this project. I feel like as a business they wouldn't have anything to loose by us doing this, and in fact it could be good for them as it may encourage others to go out and purchase an SP-2 (You never know!). Once I've got some basic advice, I'm going to reach out to them to see how they feel about it and if I can convince them to give their blessing. If all goes well, I'll make the project public again and will continue working on the python module.

[dorkmatt]

Yes!

…

On Jan 19, 2017 22:50, "Daniel Cousens" ***@***.***> wrote: I recently captured some interaction with my Instax using a Remote Virtual Interface <https://developer.apple.com/library/content/qa/qa1176/_index.html>. Is it worth posting the PCAP files here for inspection? — You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread. Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#1>, or mute the thread <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAIhHYUv3Z8sYLPvXrVKfvBQDaFbfe2Yks5rUFlFgaJpZM4Lo_eW> .

[dcousens]

@dorkmatt :(, someone just referenced me some relevant sections of Australian copyright law (regarding this), and I'm not sure where I sit with this now... sigh.

[jpwsutton]

@dcousens That's a shame, out of interest do you have a link to those sections? It would be interesting to have a look to see if there is any way around this.

[dcousens]

I'm mostly looking at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/C2016C00741,

Part III—Copyright in original literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works

47D Reproducing computer programs to make interoperable products

        (1)  Subject to this Division, the copyright in a literary work that is a computer program is not infringed by the making of a reproduction or adaptation of the work if:
                 (a)  the reproduction or adaptation is made by, or on behalf of, the owner or licensee of the copy of the program (the original program) used for making the reproduction or adaptation; and
                 (b)  the reproduction or adaptation is made for the purpose of obtaining information necessary to enable the owner or licensee, or a person acting on behalf of the owner or licensee, to make independently another program (the new program), or an article, to connect to and be used together with, or otherwise to interoperate with, the original program or any other program; and
                 (c)  the reproduction or adaptation is made only to the extent reasonably necessary to obtain the information referred to in paragraph (b); and
                 (d)  to the extent that the new program reproduces or adapts the original program, it does so only to the extent necessary to enable the new program to connect to and be used together with, or otherwise to interoperate with, the original program or the other program; and
                 (e)  the information referred to in paragraph (b) is not readily available to the owner or licensee from another source when the reproduction or adaptation is made.
         (2)  Subsection (1) does not apply to the making of a reproduction or adaptation of a computer program from an infringing copy of the computer program.

The general web has a lot of out-dated content, many of which don't seem to account for 47D in recent times.
An interpretation in http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/ANZCompuLawJl/2001/7.pdf, pg 30 seems to allude that previous, similar, blackbox cases would be null and void due to the lack of any literary work given the updated legislation... but, IANAL?

edit: I think it should be OK? The resulting product/work is purely intended to inter-operate with the original product (the Instax SP-2)...

I'll see if I can't get some legal advice proper...

[dcousens]

I think reaching out to Fujifilm would remove any ambiguity given the open source, non commercial nature of the project.
And that it is specifically related to the SP-2 (not a competing product).

Thanks for keeping me in the loop @jpwsutton 👍

[dcousens]

@jpwsutton how'd you go?

[jpwsutton]

So I sent an email but haven't received any response in the last month. At this point I'm tempted to assume that they don't care and so it's probably ok to carry on with development. If at any point they do respond, then we can take it from there.

[dcousens]

I don't have this data any more, but if I find it again I'll post it 👍