Slashdot Mirror


Apple Uses DMCA to Halt DVD burning

VValdo writes "According to news.com, Apple has warned one of its own dealers to stop handing out a patch to allow DVD burning with iDVD on non-Apple hardware." Mmmmm, laws.

5 of 503 comments (clear)

  1. wtf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Step One: Exclude existing customer base while citing DMCA
    Step Two: ???
    Step Three: Profit!

  2. Think Different by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or don't think too different, or our lawyers will beat you to a pulp.

    It's funny how apple advertises with free speech heroes, but then use lawyers and an unfair law to stifle speech.

  3. Re:Where's the problem? by motox · · Score: 2, Funny

    I feel a lot of people already compensates Apple politics on hardware by not buying apple computers :)

  4. Re:Great by MaxVlast · · Score: 2, Funny

    I used it correctly. My proposal is this: All people who do not feel fully comfortable over their control of the apostrophe should stop using it at once. Their writing would instantly improve. Once they feel comfortable with its conventions, then should begin using it again in small, friendly environments. Perhaps just family situations. Later, they should give use of the apostrophe in public a shot. With time and patience, they can be productive members of the literate community, possessivizing and contracting words to their hearts' delight!

    --
    There should be a moratorium on the use of the apostrophe.
    Max V.
    NeXTMail/MIME Mail welcome
  5. Re:DMCA Challenge? by anonymous+loser · · Score: 3, Funny
    That makes no sense. First off, Apple would lose a DMCA-based case in no time, because what Other World Computing was doing was explicitly allowed under the DMCA in the following section of the code:
    (f) Reverse Engineering.-(1) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (a)(1)(A), a person who has lawfully obtained the right to use a copy of a computer program may circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a particular portion of that program for the sole purpose of identifying and analyzing those elements of the program that are necessary to achieve interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and that have not previously been readily available to the person engaging in the circumvention, to the extent any such acts of identification and analysis do not constitute infringement under this title.

    (2) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsections (a)(2) and (b), a person may develop and employ technological means to circumvent a technological measure, or to circumvent protection afforded by a technological measure, in order to enable the identification and analysis under paragraph (1), or for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, if such means are necessary to achieve such interoperability, to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title.

    (3) The information acquired through the acts permitted under paragraph (1), and the means permitted under paragraph (2), may be made available to others if the person referred to in paragraph (1) or (2), as the case may be, provides such information or means solely for the purpose of enabling interoperability of an independently created computer program with other programs, and to the extent that doing so does not constitute infringement under this title or violate applicable law other than this section.

    (4) For purposes of this subsection, the term "interoperability" means the ability of computer programs to exchange information, and of such programs mutually to use the information which has been exchanged.

    Roughly translated: You are free to reverse-engineer a copyright product (and use the method you develop) for the purposes of interopability. There is no "challenge" to the DMCA if it's already allowed under that law.

    More likely is what former Apple employee Matt Deatherage (cool name) says:

    Matt Deatherage, a former Apple employee who edits a daily Macintosh newsletter, said Apple's legal threat reflects the company's underlying business strategy: If iDVD is useful only on internal drives, people may buy more computers.

    While this doesn't seem to be a particularly smart business strategy, it seems more likely. Would you *really* buy another $3000 computer, or just try to find 3rd party software for your 3rd party DVD burner? There might even be software already bundled with it!