19-Apr-2024 15:55 GMT.
UNDER CONSTRUCTION
[Motd] Elbox RDB allegations and email received from Elbox PRANN.lu
Posted on 12-Nov-2002 19:45 GMT by Christian Kemp (Edited on 2002-11-12 22:00:15 GMT by Christian Kemp)62 comments
View flat
View list
Tonight, I received an email complaint from Elbox concerning this article in the Forum section. Read more below. The posting in question included code allegedly taken from a disassembled Elbox usb.device. However, no sufficient proof could be provided that this code indeed exists. On the other hand, there is no firm proof that the accusations made in the thread are not true. While the act of publishing code that seems to be derived from copyrighted material could be considered abusive and unlawful in some countries, code such as the one described in the article would be more harmful to the end user, and also punishable by law.

Elbox requested that the entire posting and all comments be removed, mentioned one of my advertisers, cited my hosting provider's Terms of Service and a non-existent "ANN netiquette" in what I consider as an attempt to blackmail me into removing all traces of criticism about their company and products.

I am complying with their request to the extent that I removed the posted code, even if no sufficient proof was provided that this code is indeed copyrighted by Elbox, or that any allegations made in the post are not true.

I will, however, not comply with their requests to remove the rest of the posting, or all of the comments added to the posting.

This posting was moved into the Forum section that is not displayed on ANN's main page by default. Visitors who go there need to click an explicit link and are well aware that content in the Forum or Unmoderated sections might not have been verified for accuracy or abuse, or contain content that might for any other reason be questionable. I did not remove the article in question at the time it was posted, because it made a valid objection that until now was not proven to be untrue, and because I was hoping that somebody would come up with an explanation in the comments.

The fact that Elbox does not seem to want to discuss things in an open manner, and seems to prefer to refer to blackmailing techniques to hide all evidence of criticism on a website, is slightly disheartening, but I am not willing to just remove an entire posting with serious allegations about code that could lead to severe damage and money loss, without any further explanation.

Until now, I did not have any contact with Elbox, and am neither a Elbox customer nor an owner of a competing product; and do not have any business that is even remotely connected to Elbox, or benefits in any way from whatever is posted here. It is my opinion that I am handling this incident in the most straightforward and objective way. Please discuss.

PS. Note that Elbox did not claim that the posted code was owned by them, only that if this was the case, we would be looking at a copyright violation. While this is a thin line, one has to realize that this is not an admission of ownership, or guilt.

List of all comments to this article
Sorted by date, most recent at bottom
Comment 1Amon_Re12-Nov-2002 18:51 GMT
Comment 2T_Bone12-Nov-2002 19:04 GMT
Comment 3Lasse Bodilsen12-Nov-2002 19:09 GMT
Comment 4Budda12-Nov-2002 19:09 GMT
Comment 5Christian Kemp12-Nov-2002 19:14 GMT
Comment 6Björn Hagström12-Nov-2002 19:14 GMT
Comment 7JoannaK12-Nov-2002 19:19 GMT
Comment 8T_Bone12-Nov-2002 19:21 GMT
Comment 9Christian Kemp12-Nov-2002 19:25 GMT
Comment 10Christian Kemp12-Nov-2002 19:29 GMT
Comment 11Bill Hoggett12-Nov-2002 19:44 GMT
Comment 12darklite12-Nov-2002 19:45 GMT
Comment 13takemehomegrandma12-Nov-2002 19:46 GMT
Comment 14Christian Kemp12-Nov-2002 19:57 GMT
Comment 15gz12-Nov-2002 20:41 GMT
Comment 16redrumloa12-Nov-2002 20:53 GMT
Comment 17Anders Kjeldsen12-Nov-2002 20:59 GMT
Comment 18[JC]12-Nov-2002 21:13 GMT
Comment 19Troels E12-Nov-2002 21:16 GMT
Comment 20strobe12-Nov-2002 21:55 GMT
Comment 21Alkis Tsapanidis12-Nov-2002 22:13 GMT
Comment 22strobe12-Nov-2002 22:43 GMT
Comment 23Troels E12-Nov-2002 23:11 GMT
Comment 24Bladerunner12-Nov-2002 23:14 GMT
Comment 25knapster12-Nov-2002 23:23 GMT
Comment 26Ian12-Nov-2002 23:26 GMT
Comment 27Ian12-Nov-2002 23:41 GMT
Comment 28Ian12-Nov-2002 23:49 GMT
Comment 29strobe13-Nov-2002 00:55 GMT
Comment 30James13-Nov-2002 01:51 GMT
Comment 31Bladerunner13-Nov-2002 02:03 GMT
Comment 32Xeyes13-Nov-2002 03:43 GMT
Comment 33Anonymous13-Nov-2002 04:21 GMT
Comment 34Mikko Virtanen13-Nov-2002 05:15 GMT
Comment 35Fabio Alemagna13-Nov-2002 06:03 GMT
Comment 36Fabio Alemagna13-Nov-2002 06:07 GMT
Comment 37Grzegorz Juraszek13-Nov-2002 06:19 GMT
Comment 38Grzegorz Juraszek13-Nov-2002 06:21 GMT
Comment 39Xeyes13-Nov-2002 06:58 GMT
Comment 40Syke13-Nov-2002 07:11 GMT
Comment 41Syke13-Nov-2002 07:36 GMT
Comment 42Gabriele Favrin13-Nov-2002 08:20 GMT
Comment 43Gabriele Favrin13-Nov-2002 08:27 GMT
Comment 44JoannaK13-Nov-2002 09:39 GMT
Comment 45pinka13-Nov-2002 10:01 GMT
Comment 46Anonymous13-Nov-2002 10:21 GMT
Comment 47Gabriele Favrin13-Nov-2002 10:24 GMT
Comment 48Peter Gordon13-Nov-2002 10:26 GMT
Comment 49takemehomegrandma13-Nov-2002 10:45 GMT
Comment 50Peter Gordon13-Nov-2002 11:06 GMT
Comment 51Syke13-Nov-2002 11:19 GMT
Comment 52takemehomegrandma13-Nov-2002 11:31 GMT
Comment 53Peter Gordon13-Nov-2002 12:09 GMT
Comment 54NeRP13-Nov-2002 12:09 GMT
Comment 55Peter Gordon13-Nov-2002 12:11 GMT
Comment 56Sam Thomas13-Nov-2002 12:40 GMT
Comment 57TBone13-Nov-2002 15:28 GMT
Comment 58tinman13-Nov-2002 18:32 GMT
Comment 59Alkis Tsapanidis13-Nov-2002 19:06 GMT
Comment 60Bladerunner13-Nov-2002 19:16 GMT
Comment 61Alkis Tsapanidis13-Nov-2002 19:42 GMT
Comment 62Mark13-Nov-2002 20:27 GMT
Back to Top