Slashdot Mirror
EFF Sues Apple Over BluWiki Legal Threats
Hugh Pickens writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed suit against Apple to defend the First Amendment rights of BluWiki, a noncommercial, public Internet 'wiki' site operated by OdioWorks. Last year, BluWiki users began a discussion about making some Apple iPods and iPhones interoperate with software other than Apple's iTunes. Apple lawyers demanded removal of the content (pdf) sending a letter to OdioWorks, alleging that the discussions constituted copyright infringement and a violation of the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site but has now filed a lawsuit to vindicate its right to restore those discussions (pdf) and seeking a declaratory judgment that the discussions do not violate any of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, and do not infringe any copyrights owned by Apple. 'I take the free speech rights of BluWiki users seriously,' said Sam Odio, owner of OdioWorks. 'Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussions.'"
Random BedHead Ed adds ZDNet quotes EFF's Fred von Lohmann, who says that this is an issue of censorship. 'Wikis and other community sites are home to many vibrant discussions among hobbyists and tinkerers. It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host those discussions.'"
Screwing its customers who overpaid for their fancy products.
Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site
This is what you get when lawyers are too expensive. Censorship.
They keep doing very useful (and thankless) work.
-- Let's go Viridian.
And now we're discussing it.
Please attach subpoena as a reply.
Anal rape in every box.
A thought, if Apple is claiming copyright juristiction on the conversation, would that not mean that Apple was claiming that it had written said conversations, in whole or part, and by which, by extention, are encouraging people to do the activities therein? Could make some interesting arguements in the courtroom. IANAL but from my viewpoint, Apple does not have much of a legal leg to stand on here.
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
On some level, this (and other things that have been made by the courts and through law, like the Doctrine of First Sale) is how society as a whole negotiates with vendors - when they offer things that are enough against the interests of society, we effectively band together and tell them that their terms are unacceptable and they'll either modify them or they won't be sold here.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
This is a story regarding the countersuit to an Apple DMCA takedown notice. The EFF want publicity for this case.
No Streissand Effect here, folks.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
"I take the free speech rights of BluWiki users seriously," said Sam Odio, owner of OdioWorks. "Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussions." Yet, they did Sam, because you were too chickenshit to stand up to them. Now you want to stand behind a court decision before you muster up the "courage" to re-post the posts. If you are really concerned, re-post then go to court. Defend your users.
I'd like to hear both sides of the story. As important as the EFF is, they tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit with their message, especially when it comes to legal proceedings.
Since Apple is Apple, I doubt we will hear much from them. But I would like to point out that there is a strong bias on the part of the EFF to selectively use facts for propaganda.
See: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/14/193217
Seriously, there's no "Linux compatible" label on their products, so why the fuck would they buy it and THEN complain?
These people are idiots anyway. An iPod without the managing capacities of iTunes makes no sense. They should be buying a mass-storage MP3 player which requires no special software.
What's next, these morons will buy a PS3 and then complain to the EFF that Halo 3 doesn't work on their new console?
- Netcraft has on slashdot.org and finan3ial juggernaut either Is also a miserable BSD sux0rs. What that they can hold numbers continue see. The number transfer, Netscape for election, I Itself backwards, represents the markbeting surveys expulsion of IPF being GAY NIGGERS. happen. 'At least
If you want flexibility and choice then why use an iPod? I respect the BluWiki guys for standing up to Apple, but seriously, it's so much easier to take the path of least resistance and use an MP3 player that supports Explorer or Finder or command line mounting. Then you can use your player as a storage device as well. iPod and Zune are equally miserable in this regard.
My player of choice is the Creative Zen. It comes with proprietary software, but it's optional so you can use Explorer if you prefer. Only drawback is that they only come in solid-state flavours, no HDD, so the max capacity is 32GB (in case you only sit at a computer once every 3 months to add new music).
"Donate the Apple tax." Instead of paying the style premium, buy a Linux/Windows PC and donate the difference to the EFF to help keep Apple's jackbooted thugs in check.
One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
If you use iTunes, you don't care. I don't.
If you use (or would like to use) something else (gtkpod) to manage your iPod, then you might want to thank EFF.
Apple relied on reverse engineering especially in it's early days back when Woz was doing the Apple I and II. Steve Jobs sold Blue Box phone freak kits made by Woz that allowed you to bypass phone charges to there college peers. They need to lighten up.
Why do geeks buy XBoxes and try to turn them into Linux PC's or media devices? Why do people jailbreak smart phones? It's because geeks are geeks, and the challenge is fun. As George Mallory would say, it's because they're THERE.
Secondly, even on a more practical note, the iPod is just a nice piece of hardware. I've dropped mine a thousand times and abused it repeatedly (err, non-sexually!)... and you just can't break the thing. I simply haven't found that kind of quality in competing devices, and I am certainly NOT an Apple fanboy by any stretch.
I put the RockBox operating system on my iPod (which still leaves you the ability to dual-boot into Apple's OS if you need to)... and now my iPod functions as a typical mass-storage player. I don't need iTunes, can just copy music files on and off like a USB stick, and have support for any format I'd want (e.g. OGG, Flac, etc). Combine that with the sheer quality of the hardware (my iPod has lasted three times longer than any previous player I've had), and I'm a happy geek. If other people want to port other OS's to the device, then that's awesome and more power to them.
i think the tags for this article say it all:
eff apple !
MPAA vs 2600 regarding linking to DeCSS source/info. It seems the words "free speech" and "constitutional rights" hinge on the size of your wallet nowadays. The DMCA simply allows companies like Apple the opportunity to scare people into silence and since the penalty for false DMCA claims never seems to be put into effect I see no reason for this kind of nonsense to stop anytime soon.
Yes! There are always two sides to every conflict, and they deserve equal consideration! You can't always trust the so-called "facts" because sometimes one side has a greater ability to collect more of them than the other side. It's not fair!
Did any of you every think that maybe just maybe Apple could be right. The Ipod and the songs downloaded from Itunes have a copy protection scheme (Fairplay). Breaking this system so that songs can be transfered to other devices without using Apples Itunes and Fairplay IS IN VIOLATION OF DMCA. If you don't like that then try to get the DMCA change or reversed, otherwise shut the #@$# up.
Actually the newer songs don't have DRM at all. Of course you're right about older songs that are still encrypted with Fairplay.
The thing is, it's not about the music files anyway. DRM'ed or not, you can move the file around. The problem seems to be the files database itself that's been encrypted.
Reminds me of the old Tengen vs Nintendo case. If I remember corretly, they lost in the USA but won in Canada.
This should be an easy win.
If the DMCA only applies to the application of knowledge to circumvent copy restriction, it may be counterproductive and a horribly written law but it's still constitutional.
If the DMCA applies to the sharing of the knowledge itself, then it violates Freedom of Speech and is unconstitutional. No matter how much the sharing of such knowledge may hurt corporations; even if Apple goes out of business, even if the RIAA and MPAA come crashing down, even if the economy collapses and we all starve to death, that sharing of knowledge is still guaranteed and protected by the Constitution.
In fact, I would say that this is exactly the kind of speech that the 1st Amendment was designed to protect. Useful speech. Speech that allows intelligent people to share their knowledge to create something practical.
The Thought Police aren't coming to kill you, they are coming to enslave you. Feel like running now? No? Did I mention they are IMAGINARY? Now what are you going to do? How do you fight that which is only in your mind?
Your seriousness has killed the funny. You could have at least put it in terms of a pithy quote about liberty, lions and jackals, or free beer.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
The courts have an easy way out of this one. They'll declare there's no "case or controversy" and dismiss the complaint, just like they did when the RIAA threatned Dr. Felten over releasing watermarking information.
The only way to get heard in court when someone sends you a C&D is to fail to desist, and let them sue you. Of course, given the other side has far more resources, that's kind of like taking up Dirty Harry on his "Do you feel lucky, punk?" challenge.
bullshit off, or i will NEVER consider buying Apple products, AND, i may decide to work HARD to dissuade prospective laptop-buying friends from buying Appleware. KNOCK IT THE FUCK OFF, APPLE!
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
Although I certainly agree with the sentiment, this has nothing to do with the First Amendment. This is the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." It enjoins Congress, not Apple Computer.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Te Odio Apple
Why is it so hard for some people to believe that Apple isn't this wonderful non-profit business with only intentions of making the world better? They are a for profit business, like the rest of them, with profit as the bottom line. They sell products to make money. That is all. Some people like their products better than others. But don't equate the products they sell with how they run their corporation.
"But this one goes to 11!"
I do not understand why people want to interoperate with such a litigious company's products. I say just buy a different product and let Apple play alone in their own little corner of the sandbox. I purchased a UMS compliant media player years ago and I couldn't be happier with it. If you create software that works with their hardware, you are supporting them and contributing to their market share. We do not need a "Microsoft monopoly" of music players.
What I don't get is how the RDF has been so successful at making folks think Apple is better than MSFT, when it comes to freedom. I'm probably going get flamed for this, but what the hell, let us be honest here. Apple LOVES DRM, just like MSFT, Apple LOVES vendor lock in, just like MSFT. If they switched positions tomorrow Apple would be just as nasty when it comes to anti competitive practices as MSFT ever was when Darth Gates was running it(Damn I miss him. The monkey is like a bad Dilbert joke) and any attempt by anybody to go around their locks, even as we saw here to allow interoperability, will get their lawyers falling out of the sky on them.
So I honestly don't get it. The way you hear Apple fanboys talking you'd think Jobs is sitting in some office with his bare feet up tinkering these new toys by hand, when in reality Apple is nothing but a "Mini MSFT" that doesn't have a bumbling marketing monkey screwing with the line. But of course when Steve retires, well I'm sure they'll get their very own Ballmer. if they like Apple because they are shiny, or they think the brushed metal is cool,fine. But please quit trying to make it sound like Apple is this nice hippie company in California. They haven't been that since the Woz quit decades ago. They are just MSFT on a smaller scale, that's all.
They are just lucky that they still have Darth Jobs to wield the dark side of the force for them. All we MSFT users have is a really fat stormtrooper that couldn't hit the broad side of popular with a blaster rifle.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Declaration of Independence from the American colonies
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like the tyranny of a monarchy then try to get the king to change, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then keep paying taxes to the king.{/Anonymous Coward}
Civil rights movement takes on the Jim Crow laws.
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like segregation and individual rights based on the color of your skin then change the color of your skin, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then continue to sit in the back of the bus.{/Anonymous Coward}
Salt Satyagraha campaign against British Salt Laws.
{Anonymous Coward}If you don't like paying monopoly prices for salt due to laws that make it illegal to produce your own salt then change your diet to a no-salt diet, otherwise shut the #@$# up. Until then continue to pay exorbitant prices and taxes to the British Empire.{/Anonymous Coward}
ad infinitum...
If they were just for profit, they wouldn't have made their MacBooks' displays "eco-friendly" at the cost of rendering them useless to serious creative professionals. In other words they are now in the process of letting their politics influence the quality of their product, which WILL impact sales and marketshare.
I'm not buying ANY Apple product with that hideous glossy screen.
It's not a lie. It's the truth with lossy compression.
I'll be a lot more impressed and enthused when the DMCA is simply removed, repealed, revoke or otherwise trashed from U.S. law books. It's bad law designed to enable a wide variety of people to do things copyright was never intended to do.
If frequent abuse of law isn't reason enough for its repeal, I can't imagine what is.
sooo much more open?
If you're going to boycott every company that pulls this kind of crap, get ready to grow your own food and cultivate your own penicillin too. Monsanto and the drug companies make Apple look like total hippies.
After high school, you'll find out that they ALL play dirty. It won't change unless we reform our "IP" laws.
I'm tired of all these copyright /. posts over the last 10 years. So let me set the record straight.
"If you use a device or media outside the INTENDED USE AND MORE THEN YOU AS A SOLE PERSON USE IT then you are breaking the copyright."
Copyright is more then just protecting the idea, it is protecting the PRODUCT in general. You buy an iPOD you are allowed to interact with it with the software that Apple allows you to interact with it. Here are some things that will get you sued, just so we are clear.
iPODs, you are breaking the terms agreement examples
if you use any software not licensed or allowed to interact with the device. (using some custom app to transfer/decrypt/convert)
if you use any hardware to function the device in a means that it is not originally designed for. (using a stereo attachment to listen to music on the beach)
if you take the device apart
if you tamper with any of the devices input/output in a way that is not provided in the how-to, instructions or terms agreement
if you use the device in any manor that is out of scope of the devices original intended use.
bla bla bla. It's all right there, black and white, clear as crystal. if you don't like it, invent your own.
While I support the course of action which BluWiki have taken, it is not at all surprising that apple will act in their usual reprehensible manner.
Reverse engineering/cracking/technical discussion/anything-your-corporate-overlords-raise-their-eyebrows-at groups, would do better to simply speak outside of the legal reach of such entities. Either by not having discussions in public, using channels not often trawled by our overlords (IRC, etc.) or locating the server/parent corporation in safer waters, so to speak.
If no-one could read their discussion without registering or without being added to the group/whatever, apple probably would not have found it or bothered to cause a fuss. This is by no means ideal though.
Probably more practical, if they had just bought some web space in South Korea or something, instead of using unsafe webspace based in the US, they'd be home free and probably get better service to boot...
There is no psychiatrist in the world like a puppy licking your face - Ben Williams
*sigh* Apple and Microsft aren't equal. In fact, they aren't equally detrimental to the world of computer science. And, it goes beyond scale.
Apple sells physical products, which happen to be preloaded with their own operating systems and software. Apple won't permit anyone to do much of anything with those systems, which apple doesn't approve of. Apple, bad, yeah.
Microsoft sells almost no physical products, instead relying on an established monopoly, created by intimidating manufacturers of computer hardware. Exclusivity agreements barred mfgrs from offering any competing systems on their hardware. By default, everyone in the world bought either MS operating systems, or they bought Apple, or they bought machines with no OS, or they simply bought the parts to build their own no OS systems. There was an enforced virtual MS tax on almost all computers for more than a decade, and many people still pay that tax. (I can find more proofs that MS is evil, but this one is enough to suffice) Microsoft evil.
On the one hand, we have bad. On the other, we have evil. Perhaps the bad boy would LIKE TO BE evil, but we don't know that, and we certainly can't prove it. Bad is bad, but evil trumps bad, every time.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
... and part-time Apple Fanboy, I actually do care. I hope the EFF hits Apple so hard their lawyers and management have headaches for a few years.
I generally use iTunes because I like it, but it may not always be my favorite, someone might produce something I like better. If that happens and they're willing to try to make it work with the iPod, what good reason is there for keeping them from doing so?
I do see that there are some potential copyright issues, particularly if the discussion is focused on pulling music in the device -> computer direction, rather than pushing it the computer -> device direction. But aside from that, there's nothing copyright oriented about interoperability with a portable music player.
Tweet, tweet.
The point being, if Apple had 90% of the market, would they be any better than Microsoft is now? There's certainly enough evidence to think that they would be.
Sigh, that's what I get for just clicking through the preview. That last bit should be "they would not be [any better]."
I can hear the confusion from here. Do we side with the EFF, because they take up the good fight of defending our essential digital liberties, or do we side with Apple, because they make nifty-keen little gadgets?
Believe me, their reasoning was profit. One of their number crunchers indicated that their data says that the glossy screen will make them more money. (Cheaper manufacturing, initial test show people like it better, or even "Sure it is cheaper to make, but the average customer can't tell the difference", or what have you.) Their data may be in error, but I'm sure it was presented to their marketing folks as a big "plus" and not a huge "minus". Sometimes, *gasp* even Apple gets it wrong in predicting what people really want.
Or they want you to buy one of their big fancy displays by purposely making their built-in displays crap.
P.S. I know exactly what you mean though. My girlfriend does graphic design and she hates the new displays as well. Luckily she has one of the older ones that don't suck.
"But this one goes to 11!"
As a software developer (open source & commercial) I'd say that Apple is WORSE than MS.
I buy Dells all the time with no operating systems, and no pre-loaded software at all. Just a blank hard drive. Of course I am also buying through a University and probably have more readily available options than Joe Blow customer does. But the point being is that there are ways to buy systems independent of any OS, but the manufacturers don't want to make it easy for you. Usually if you dig around a website, or call and speak to a customer service person to get the option of a "bare" system. Or just do what I do and build it yourself. I built a system using components from Newegg and got a system for about $650 that would have cost me at least $950 from Dell or any of the big boy manufacturers. Yes it takes a little more time and effort, but it is the sort of time and effort geeks find stimulating...
"But this one goes to 11!"
is that no matter who wins, I still get a good laugh.
Apple LOVES vendor lock in, just like MSFT. If they switched positions tomorrow Apple would be just as nasty when it comes to anti competitive practices as MSFT... They are just MSFT on a smaller scale, that's all.
But companies love to be anthropomorphized. Lets be fair here. I like it that the type of computers I'm a specialist in administering are vendor locked into using Linux. I'm typing this from my MacBook Pro, and I actually thought about this lockin thing when I bought it. I was thinking, "Should I spend this much money or buy something cheaper?" I also thought, "You know my music is pretty vendor locked into iTunes, do I want this?"
And my answer to myself was yes and yes. I can buy a new computer anytime I want, and practically 100% of my files are able to be read on another computer with different software, but I cannot think of another laptop or desktop computer that I would like to use. Their professional lines are exactly that, the other stuff is pretty good as well.
Excuse me, I used the wrong word. Libel is not a CRIME, and therefore the police have no business investigating it. It's a Civil Matter.
Maxim: People cannot follow directions.
Increases in truth directly with the length of time spent explaining them
to Microsoft stating that any other operating system placed upon a PC is in violation of the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. after all its nothing more than hardware.
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
Yes, MSFT "owns" the OS, but the BIG difference is they don't "own" the hardware. And frankly I think it is debatable which is more evil. I remember what is was like before, where your Vic wouldn't talk to your TRS 80 which wouldn't talk to your IBM, etc. But frankly ANYBODY can write a Windows driver. I have seen more weird shit come out in the last 15 years or so, all because it was butt simple to write a Windows driver for any weird ass piece of hardware you could dream up. I mean you can even put a fricking cassette deck in your PC!
The point is before MSFT sold MS-DOS to Compaq, the entire PC world was "welcome to proprietary land" where nothing worked with anybody else and it was all crazy expensive. And now that the PC ecosystem has matured Linux(and BSD, and Haiku,etc) can take advantage of that to give us even more choice. Do most PCs come with Windows? Yep, because that is what folks want. They WANT to play their games, or have that nice shiny disc they got at the Wally World work, or have their printer/scanner/fax without praying to the Gods of CLI. If Apple would have won we would probably still have $3000+ machines that only those with serious cash could afford. Now I can slap together a machine with frankly insane power for less than $400. To me that is progress.
So as much as I HATE what that marketing ass monkey Ballmer is trying to push in 400 fricking versions, I still give credit where credit was due. If it wasn't for Darth Gates making it so it didn't matter whether I bought Dell, or HP, or Packard Bell(remember those), or Gateway,etc that everything worked as long as it had the Windows symbol on it things would be VERY different. Because I remember what it was like before MSFT, and frankly it really, REALLY sucked. If you think Apple makes great PCs, fine. I agree completely. Ferrari makes damned nice roadsters too, I can't afford those either.
But at least now I have choice. I can run WinXP(my choice) or Vista, I can run Linux, or BSD, or thanks to the wonders of the Internet I can even run a hacked version of OSX on generic hardware if I wanted to. But we probably wouldn't have that choice if Darth Gates hadn't screwed over IBM all those years ago. And looking at their actions I would have to say that Darth Jobs is JUST as nasty as Darth Gates, he just has less money but MUCH better taste.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Clever. Now all they have to do is look for the guy that just started running.
I don't have to out run them. I just have to out run YOU!
Dammit... forgot to grab my tinfoil hat....
Because it is shiny, and how can something shiny possibly be bad?
Considering the pricing of Apple laptops, I will keep buying "good-enough-to-slightly-better-than-i-hoped" generic PCs that Linux can use reasonably well. I will keep using VirtualBox (to the extent that Oracle doesn't kill it off) and probably use windoze 7 if i buy another laptop in the next 5 months or whenever i can escape vista.
Apple iPhones and laptops are, i readily say, enviable and slick and cool and nice and all, but a few of the keys i can't wrap my head around. I still am stuck on 3-button or 2-button-with-wheel mice with apps READY TO USE the feature. About the closest-to-Apple-like product i use is Punch! ViaCAD, and that runs reasonably well & useful for me in memory-hogging vista, inside VirtualBox, inside Mandriva...
Yeh, i know i could run Parallels.... but...
Previously: "Linux... Toward the Sunrise..." Now: "Linux... Toward the-- No, now, part of Every Sunrise"
The email from Apple's lawyers says:
The DMCA explicitly prohibits the dissemination of information that can be used to circumvent such technology.
[emphasis added]
That general statement is a double falsehood. What the DMCA explicitly prohibits disseminating is a "technology, product, service, device, component, or part thereof", not information per se. Some courts might possibly interpret the DMCA as prohibiting information that doesn't have direct functionality, but the DMCA certainly doesn't "explicitly" prohibit it.
To fall within the DMCA's prohibition something must also have a greater relationship to circumvention than being merely capable of being used for circumvention. While Apple would undoubtedly claim that this particular content does have the requisite relationship to circumvention, and may even be correct in such a claim, that doesn't make the general statement any more true.
Obviously you missed the episode of "Pimp My Ride" where they totally chromed out the Death Star.
"But this one goes to 11!"
i love how these companies think they do whatever they want. Apple is just another example of a rotten apple in a bushel of fruits. :/