by fraqed on 5/23/20, 1:07 PM with 168 comments
by robotmay on 5/23/20, 2:43 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7xHgXFEJUE
by souterrain on 5/23/20, 4:11 PM
1. Forbid delegation of enforcement to third parties. If you’re the copyright holder, you or your actual attorney may be the only ones to file a complaint. The copyright holder is solely responsible for such DMCA complaints.
2. Complaints found to be invalid shall result in reimbursement by the copyright holder an amount equal to three times the costs incurred to defend the complaint, including time, legal fees, etc., to the aggrieved party.
3. Three strike rule: if a copyright holder commits a false complaint action three times for a particular work, that work’s copyright is immediately invalidated and shall revert to the public domain.
by tomxor on 5/23/20, 3:44 PM
The code is not even for the calculator, it's for a "esp8266-12E" which is an arduino-like board. This has more to do with the plastic case than electronics or code:
If you watch the video of the modification to the calculator at the bottom of the article you can see the only thing the calculator board appears to share is a power source - this is essentially a duct tape mod that went to the effort of fitting a separate computer and display inside of the case. If you can find a fork (git links in the comments) you will also notice that it's all arduino code.
Casio simply dislikes the mod because it adds a separate computer to their exam-approved calculator case, turning it into something only suited to formative assessment while being difficult to differentiate from the original. However the repo has pretty much nothing to do with their calculator other than the fact that it was once used on an arduino board that was glued inside of a casio calculator in a youtube video - IANAL but pretty sure DMCA has no ground - their statement certainly seems to be a lie based on the fact that the code is not for the Casio, then again they probably also have no legal grounds against people using their own plastic casio calculator cases for something that's not a casio circuit... so this is quite possibly a willful abuse of DMCA processes on Github to get it illegally removed.
[EDIT]
On closer inspection it should be possible to invalidate the complaint on the spot... the full complaint is included in the article, including a link to the supposed "original copyrighted work":
https://support.casio.com/en/support/download.php?cid=004&pi...
It contains some generic example formulas in a simple looking expression language which I expect runs on their calculators. Not exactly something you could set up a http connection with, and definitely not a "literal copy" of the arduino code in the other repo.
by elliekelly on 5/23/20, 3:05 PM
I’m increasingly uncomfortable with the balance of knowledge/power/experience in the counter-notice process. The repo owner is at a huge disadvantage when going up against the experienced and expensive lawyers filing these claims. Even when the law is on the developer’s side it’s almost an unwinnable battle.
by jventura on 5/23/20, 3:46 PM
I guess if people had to pay at least one dollar to file a complaint like this, you’d have less.
Also, why did github removed the repo before checking things out first?
by pbasista on 5/23/20, 4:25 PM
Yet, REACT (also known as the Anti-Counterfeiting Network), which represents Casio, claims that:
> The code the repository contains is proprietary and not to be publicly published. The hosted content is a direct, literal copy of our client’s work.
I would be interested to know which of their products uses WiFi and connects to a Firebase database.
by supernova87a on 5/23/20, 5:38 PM
by skdd8 on 5/23/20, 6:38 PM
Fight for your right to repair:
by bubblethink on 5/23/20, 4:16 PM
by dukoid on 5/23/20, 2:44 PM
by anotheryou on 5/23/20, 4:28 PM
He doesn't touch the computing part of the computer, he just fits a micro controller with screen, battery and wifi in the case and removes the solar panel and a bit of plastic for that.
Sadly that makes the whole project a bit less exciting, but still :)
by JayOC84 on 5/23/20, 4:13 PM
by dylan604 on 5/23/20, 2:50 PM
More likely REACT reacted on their own as that's what their entire existence is about. This was probably yet again some lawyer working for the group that has no knowledge of coding, see's the trade name of a company they are representing, and took action.
Of course, I'm just playing armchair QB and have no knowledge whatsoever either way. He said, EvilCorp said, He loses.
by teh_klev on 5/23/20, 11:06 PM
by daniel-thompson on 5/23/20, 3:26 PM
> You are not allowed to use any of the following items as a calculator: ... Models that can access the Internet, have wireless, Bluetooth, cellular, audio/video recording and playing, camera, or any other smart phone type feature
by nomadluap on 5/23/20, 2:36 PM
by Aeolun on 5/23/20, 10:26 PM
by garfieldnate on 5/23/20, 10:28 PM
by goatinaboat on 5/24/20, 7:16 AM
This is not about Casio really, this is about React who need to justify their existence to their sponsors. Casio probably wasn’t even aware this was happening at first.
by miga on 5/23/20, 4:57 PM
by rasz on 5/24/20, 1:53 AM
by agumonkey on 5/23/20, 4:55 PM
by 29athrowaway on 5/23/20, 10:40 PM
by djmips on 5/23/20, 10:13 PM
by metaphor on 5/24/20, 6:04 AM
From GitHub's policy on submitting a DMCA takedown notice[1] on what the complaint must contain:
> (7) Include the following statement: "I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, or its agent, or the law. I have taken fair use into consideration."
> (8) Also include the following statement: "I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in this notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner, or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed."
The claimed "original content" (preloaded programs for a fx-FD10 Pro) cited in the takedown notice[2] isn't even remotely relevant to the physical host that the hack targets (a fx-991MS). After watching the 11 min video and without even looking at the repo contents, it's so obvious that REACT couldn't possibly have submitted this DMCA takedown notice "in good faith" given the standalone hack has absolutely nothing to do with the target host's firmware/software--or anything published on Casio's website--to begin with!
So "under penalty of perjury", React is exploiting how GitHub passively handles these DMCA takedown notices...I mean seriously, an irrelevant download link that clearly wasn't reviewed by anything that constitutes human intelligence can nerf an entire repo?? Unfortunately, this has been the meta for as long as I can remember and this pragmatically non-existent qualifying bar is just 1 reason why I don't play on GitHub.
But the part I find to be the most egregious that it appears no one is really talking about? To defend himself, this guy has to satisfy GitHub's counter notice policy[3], in particular:
> (3) Provide your contact information. Include your email address, name, telephone number, and physical address.
The policy doesn't even require explaining to GitHub why the takedown is bullshit; it's just to signal the other side that you're willing to defend the thing under scrutiny against further legal action. The guy already pulled the counter notice trigger, but without dedicated legal representation and/or the public media on your side, it's difficult for any 1 dood in the capacity of private citizen to expose personal identifiable information and embrace the threat of a legal harassment campaign by an organization of legal professionals. React knows they don't have anything, but if the victim doesn't have balls + legal counsel + disposable income, the gambit is that they really won't need anything either.
[1] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...
[2] https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2020/05/2020-05-2...
[3] https://help.github.com/en/github/site-policy/guide-to-submi...
by MintelIE on 5/23/20, 7:21 PM
There is an exception, the SwissMicros people[1]. But that seems to be about it in this modern era. HP used to be excellent as their main market was engineers and scientists and other professionals. But the Prime is obviously made for the school calculator market.
It seems that large companies have decided the school market is the only one which matters now, and compliance with standardized testing rules is more important than other considerations. That's probably why used HP calculators from the golden age cost as much or more than a new TI, Casio, or Prime.
by foobar_ on 5/23/20, 3:04 PM