OSx86 Shutdown Rumors Explained

n.e.watson writes "The AP has run an article that addresses recent rumors on the internet about Apple Legal shutting down the OSx86 Project, with a statement from an OSx86 administrator. From the article: 'The OSx86 Project Web site stated Apple had served it with a notice on Thursday citing violations of the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act, and the site was reviewing all of its discussion forum postings as a result. The site has always aimed to adhere to copyright laws and is working with Apple to ensure no violations exist, according to a statement by the site administrator.'"

Comments

Apple going overboard? LEGAL security

[sreekotay]

Hmm - we do something similar at AOL in terms of the poem (yes, I know - you're SHOCKED that big companies do similar misguided goofy things :P). I had just written about it on my blog given all the Apple press swirl about this.

But we (AOL) are not really trying to prevent the random developer or user from doing anything - obviously this isn't about being secure TECHNICALLY. We just wanted to prevent giant business partners and competitors and the like profiting from doing things with our software and users we didn't authorize.

I'd imagine Apple's reasons are similar, though that doesn't really line up with this shutdown order. As I don't think anything like this has gone to court yet, it sounds like either they need to enforce their rights everywhere to keep them, or they're trying to force the precedent, or they've got some zealous/quasi-religious entitlement thing going, between their iPod protectionism, shutting down rumour sites, and now this... Ah, its ok, they're Apple - EVERYBODY loves Apple :)

Re:Seriously, why bother?

[iezhy]

form OSx86 site:

"Apple is certainly well within their rights to protect their OS and we have always supported them in this effort. Our first-class moderating staff has helped ensure that direct links to any patches are not allowed. We have in the past linked to the homepage of Maxxuss - but not to the offending 10.4.4 patches - in the interest of news, but we've removed those links just in case."

funny thing, they removed links to supposedly infriging site, but put name of this site on the front page - using it as google keyword will lead you to the same site from the first hit :)))

SLAPP

[maynard]

OK, after reading TFA, this strikes me as more a SLAPP (Strategic lawsuit against public participation) lawsuit by Apple than any government intervention. It appears that Apple served their ISP with notice of a possible DMCA violation, and so the ISP (or the site administrators) shut the site down in order to verify the claims made by Apple. No judge has filed an order, however.

So: are links to remote sites which convey possibly nonviolent criminal information worth squelching in the public interest? And should a private entity have the inherent right to enforce their interest without a court order (as appears to be the case here)? Because that's what misuse of SLAPP is all about.

outsource it

[scenestar]

Everytime i wonder when i see a valuable project taken down for DMCA violations i wonder: "why dont they just continue the job overseas where legislation is more reasonable?"

Is this really illegal?

[thisislee]

Funny. I thought talking about crimes wasn't illegal in this country. There have been what I think is legal information about how to do things that are completely illegal for as long as I can remember. While you should never act on this information, it is only information.

While The Anarchist Cookbook is legally available in the United States, it is unlawful in many other countries. The information contained in the book includes instructions that, if followed, may be against the law (see felony for more details). Anarchist Cookbook

Re:wiki is INCORRECT... the sound resource is from

[Some Bitch]

Not according to the guy who made the sounds for Apple.

http://www.boingboing.net/2005/03/24/early_apple_s ound_de.html

Re:Bad link

[Reality Master 101]

IF YOU CAN'T POST AN OPEN, PUBLIC LINK TO THE STORY, THEN DON'T POST IT AT ALL

Screw you. Who the fuck are you to decide that I should only view links that don't require a subscription? If you don't like it, don't look at the story. I'll decide for myself whether I want to view it, thank you.