Slashdot Mirror
Apple Backs Off DMCA Threats Against Wiki
netbuzz writes "A wiki operator who was pressured by Apple's legal team into removing anonymous discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones says he is relieved that Apple has backed off and he'll be able to restore the disputed material. Apple dropped its claims of copyright and DMCA violation against BluWiki only under legal pressure of its own in the form of a lawsuit by the Electronic Frontier Foundation."
>> Right because we wouldn't want hobbyists out there devoting their free time to making a hardware device more supported, interoperable, functional, etc. That would be horrible. It's funny how my operating system of choice was created from just that.
In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft. I am sure this will be moded down very soon, but since the time Apple has hit jackpot with ipod/iphone, they have shown their true colors.
After digging through the EFF documents, I'm not sure who to believe here. The story, the EFF and the wiki operator claim it was a discussion about doing this and it was not actually implemented.
IIRC, Apple accused them of discussing how to circumvent the Fairplay system (This can be confirmed easily). BluWiki claimed they were only discussing software to communicate with the iPod for transferring music, not for circumventing the encryption. The wiki pages haven't been restored yet so we can only take their word for it here. Apple seem to have changed their story and now claim they only objected to decompiled code.
Not sure about the rights and wrongs of it but it looks like Apple have decided to backpedal based on the bad PR from a case that they most likely can't win, and are changing their story to make it look like they haven't lost.
You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here?
Apple's motive is to sell you The Experience, not a piece of software or hardware. Anyone other than Apple who interoperates with Apple products aside from a tightly controlled few avenues (a few open communication standards and their SDKs), is going to be seen as a threat to that.
They want to be able to sell you their vision and their experience, and anyone who deviates from that while piggybacking off their products is going to be seen as a threat. They could be worried about sub-par experiences tarnishing their name, and they could be worried about excellent experiences that they could be making every cent of the money from. But mostly they're worried about people being different, not buying into their vision. Then they can't sell you the next revision of the next product that integrates seamlessly into your digital lifestyle of Apple products.
So they'll bring down every tool they have to fight you, legal and otherwise, because this is the core of their business, and they view it as the thing worth most defending.
I am going to go with zealous lawyers. That whole thing about malice vs stupidity. Apple is hardly alone in that boat. There have been quite a few DMCA and GPL type lawsuits that basically came from fanatic lawyers that probably don't know anything more about technology than how to push the power button on their computer. (And then call the tech guy because it didn't boot up and have him come to their office and push the power on the monitor too).
I view the heart of the problem here is asshats like Ted "Internet Tubes" Stevens are being allowed to make the laws regarding technology with absolutely NO working knowledge of the subject they are legislating. To blame the companies for trying to use the laws that these idiots passed isn't exactly fair. Now, that doesn't mean these companies are innocent isn't true either, but now we are back to the malice vs stupidity problem.
Now, Apple does have a pretty nasty history of being very secretive about their stuff and locking people out. However, even this goes beyond sinister. As a company they are VERY focused on the whole "user experience" thing. They have huge design documents and enforce these design rules pretty strictly. Forcing all of your users to play in a well defined sandbox lowers your support costs dramatically. You can have your support staff much smaller, much better trained, and ultimately much more effective because the number of bizarro variables they have to face is drastically reduced. Almost the entire Apple brand is built around that "simply works" image and regardless of whether you agree with their tactics, they defend that "simply works" viciously.
There is also the stupid bits of the American legal system that says they must defend their patents/trademarks/etc or lose them. So it puts these companies in the position of fight everyone or lose their assets. They can't really "look the other way" because it would allow a competitor to come in and eat their lunch and then go to court and say "they didn't defend against this guy, so they can't stop us!"
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
I'm as cynical as the next moderately informed /.er, maybe more so, but I've gotta hand it to the folks at EFF. They're one of the few groups making any noticeable impact on corporate and government actions that threaten us little people.
mmmm...forbidden donut
>>>I think there is a very fundamental principle at work here. Apple is obsessed with usability.
That Apple Kool-Aid is really good isn't it? ;-) Your reason is only a symptom, not the cause. The fundamental cause is that Apple is afraid of clone companies like Gateway or eMachines or Whoever coming-along and stealing their Mac/iPod/iPhone market the same way they took the IBM PC away from IBM.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Third:
Fucking Apple... how can you not hate this self serving, pissing-in-the-face-of-every-consumer company?
Don't get me wrong, I hate all companies. Some more, some less. Not because I'm bitter, but because only idiots are unaware of the fundamental concepts of trade. It's a battle between the seller and buyer, and only an idiot consumer sides with the seller. The consumer, aka buyer, is supposed to pressure the seller to lower prices and increase quality and terms. The whole point of trading is to make profit, and of course not always in monetary means.
In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft. I am sure this will be moded down very soon, but since the time Apple has hit jackpot with ipod/iphone, they have shown their true colors.
I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes. Before their marketshare fell in the 1990s Apple had been very monopolistic in their practices...sueing and putting clone makers out of business, deciding whose software was "good enough" to run on their platform (sometimes disallowing stuff simply because it competed with, and was better, than Apple's offerings), etc. It is because of those behaviors that Microsoft rose to prominance in the early days, on the back of IBM clone makers, because the Intel platform was perceived to be more open (and it was...until Microsoft established its monopoly. That said, it remains more open on the hardware side).
I like Apple's products. I go so far as to recommend Apple to friends and family who are not technically savvy enough or interested in running Linux, but that said, make no mistake: the moment Apple feels it has market dominance, it's behavior is likely to be very reminiscent of the monopolistic practices of Microsoft, and before them IBM. Perhaps that moment has arrived.
As anathema as it is to Apple fanbois, iPhone addicts, and those who like to wear cynicism as a ficade in a futule effort to look worldly and "wise", it has to be said: once again, Richard Stallman has been vindicated. If you really want freedom in the digital age, be it freedom to innovate, freedom to use, freedom to create, or (apparently in this case, for the past several months) freedom to speak and discuss technical details of interoperability without fear of economic or legal reprisal, you'd better be using a free and open platform. Alas, most people aren't too concerned about that...until something like this happens to them (or something a little less draconian, like...oops, your financial data is no longer accessible and the software you need to access it doesn't run on a current os, and is no longer available for purchase. Then suddenly gnu cash looks pretty appealing, and voila! you have another advocate of free software. You'd be surprised how many in the business world, on the business rather than technical side of things, are starting to adopt that attitude.)
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Chief, this has nothing to do with lawyers taking over a company. Anyone who has ANY knowledge of Apple's history, especially under Steve Jobs, knows the man and the company he drives has a hard on for absolute control over their devices.
If Steve could find a way to make it profitable, he'd officially stop selling hardware and start leasing.
Compare Apple's market share in PMPs and online music distribution to Microsoft's OS market share. Compare their business dealings, and competitor pricing and tell me Apple is not as much a monopoly in the PMP space as Microsoft is in the OS.
As a consumer it's easy for me to avoid Apple hardware/software/downloads. I can buy one of many mp3 players and download a full range of mp3 tracks from (say) Amazon. (Or even download the now DRM-free AAC tracks from iTunes and play them on a non-DRM AAC supporting music player).
If I want to avoid Windows it's much more difficult - some important software only runs on Windows, large numbers of devices only function at all or fully on Windows, I can only get full connectivity to an Exchange server with MS software, etc. etc.
So while Apple may well have a similar market share in the PMP area as MS does in the OS market, the effect on the consumer is not nearly as significant. I can (and do) stand entirely apart from the Apple PMP ecosystem and suffer no significant disadvantage.
If Apple had the only online store selling a full range of digital music *then* if would be similar to MS in terms of monopoly abuse.
if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase.
As would the support costs.
[citation needed]
To give you an example: There are thousands, if not millions, of aftermarket parts for vehicles. None of them increase the support costs for the vehicle manufacturers.
In short, you're full of shit.
As would the support costs.
and:
Apple knows how to tech-support the iTunes application and the iPod firmware. It does not know how to tech-support a third-party app or Rockbox firmware.
I will give you the fact that Apple has the right to provide support on whatever they want too. However by opening a my iPod box I did not sign a contract giving Apple the exclusive right to tell me what I can and can not do with my iPod. If I want to use my iPod to unclog my sink then I can. I am capable of reasoning that if I call Apple and say "my iPod broke and it failed to unclog my drains" they arent going to help me get a warranty replacement, nor help me unclog my drains.
To finish the analogy I want to use XYZ music player to upload music to a portable music player that I own then I certainly hope that I can. At the same time, I am capable of reasoning that I cannot call Apple when XYZ music player stops working properly...
...and I think that's really shitty. It's like MS could use their strong OS position to force out all other browsers, search-engines and office suites, because they have a "vision" of how we should use the internet and word-processor.
And he's also a human with a personality, which influences those decisions based on his world view, likes, dislikes, and etc.
He could just as easily make money hand over fist if he loosen his death-like grip over Apple products and allowed others to play. Licensing money is 'easy' money. He doesn't because he has a control fetish.
I think it's even simpler than selling Apple's vision. It's money, plain and simple. The reason they're up in arms about it is because of the iTunes Store. Any way to open up the usability of iPod is a way for them to lose revenue on the sales of movies, tv shows, and music from the iTunes store. Sure, they make money selling iPods; but the real reason to sell iPods, and Video iPods, isn't just to sell more iPods than Zunes. It is so that they can get millions of dollars of residual sales from the iTunes Store. THAT'S why they're against opening up the iPod. They lose all that extra money if there's an easy way for people to jailbreak their iPods so they don't have to come to Apple to buy media to fill the iPods.
Give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day. But light a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.
The one thing that we as consumers forget from time to time is that questionable business practices are passively approved by us the consumers when we trade said companies our hard earned money for the product/service in consideration. If interoperability is not included in a product I am considering, I find an alternative product to trade my money for. Do I really need an iPod when a mp3 player will do? Is purchasing mp3 tracks from Amazon a better alternative to iTunes since I can put them on any mp3 capable device? Consumers have the power to be in control... We just need to realize it.
Who was that pointy-eared bastard?