| ▲ | NoahZuniga 4 days ago |
| > Number of times they've asked me to make them one: 23
> Number of times I've had to explain copyright law: 23 It's not clear to me why sharing an app that puts the qr code in Apple wallet would violate copyright law. This wouldn't require redistributing the app or any of its copyrighted contents. Maybe "unauthorized" use of the API is against TOS, but that's not illegal. |
|
| ▲ | cxr 4 days ago | parent | next [-] |
| In the US, it wouldn't be, but this is the UK, which doesn't have the same views about what is and isn't copyrightable that the US has. (Despite vague sentiments to the contrary, the US is a lot better at saying, "No, you can't stop people from doing that" than the UK or the EU when it comes to overbroad attempts by creators/rightholders to exert control.) |
|
| ▲ | wat10000 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| In the US, the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act outlaws unauthorized access to computer systems. “Unauthorized” has sometimes been interpreted to include terms of service violations. So if their click-through agreement nobody reads says you’re only allowed to use their official app to access the service, using a third party app to access it may be criminal. |
| |
|
| ▲ | jt2190 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] |
| I made a similar comment below, but I’ll add to this one too: If I, as a gym member, use their api when I run their app and that’s ok, why can I not run the same api from a third-party app for the exact same use-case? If his app asked me to punch in my eight-digit pin and then just kept that stored locally for convenience, what is the issue? |
| |
| ▲ | valzevul 4 days ago | parent | next [-] | | OP here. Yeah, "copyright law" was a lazy shorthand, but it reads better than "tortious interference." PureGym's T&Cs [1] have a ridiculously long "PIN abuse policy" (probably meant to stop people sharing with mates). They can cancel memberships or even retroactively charge for gym use if you "knowingly provided your PIN to another individual." I'm not a lawyer and don't fancy being the test case for whether entering your PIN on a third-party website/app counts as "knowingly providing" it. Given how their app works, I suspect they might just ban a bunch of accounts instead. Though now that I think about it, the squat racks are always packed, so maybe I should just distribute the app to people who go at the same time as me. [1] https://www.puregym.com/membership-terms-conditions/ | | |
| ▲ | jt2190 4 days ago | parent [-] | | > I'm not a lawyer and don't fancy being the test case for whether entering your PIN on a third-party website/app counts as "knowingly providing" it. I guess I'm assuming that you would design the iOS app to collect and store the PIN number on the device, and never ever share it, since (if I read the post correctly) that's all you'd need to get to basic auth. I take your point that that might still be considered "sharing with a third party" but honestly I suspect that (a) they wouldn't notice for a long long time and (b) they would typically start by sending a c&d, not hiring a team top-notch lawyers and going straight to court unless you're really wealthy and there's some prize to be had for all of those legal fees. |
| |
| ▲ | AlienRobot 4 days ago | parent | prev [-] | | Look at it this way. If I buy something from a store and pay in cash, and then the cashier takes some money from the register and hands me the change, that's okay. But if I open the register myself and take the money, they call the police. i.e. just because it's POSSIBLE to do something doesn't mean it's okay to do it. | | |
| ▲ | NoahZuniga 4 days ago | parent [-] | | Well, as long as you don't steal anything or assault the cashier you haven't done anything illegal (even if the police is called). You're example fails. |
|
|
