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."
In November 2008, Apple sent a series of legal threats to the operator of BluWiki, alleging that these hobbyist discussions about interoperability ...
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.
You know, I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here? Because if I made a hardware product and someone developed a new novel way to utilize it, my sales would increase. Sure people might not be using my software that goes with the hardware but who cares? Sales of these devices can go nowhere but up. All I can think of relating this to is game consoles. Which--up until the PS3 & Yellow Dog Linux--they have been very wary of people using for alternative purposes for the sole reason that pricing schemes have long involved a loss on the console with massive profits raked in on licensing titles to the console. So you don't want your XBox360 turned into a Linux server never to play a game again or Microsoft just took a loss (not sure if they still take losses on that console, just an example).
So what's up, is Apple selling iPods at a loss with the expected return being iTunes Music Service sales? Or even the monetary value they assign to having iTunes and Quicktime on the consumer's computer?
If a hobbyist or start up company or anyone figures out a way to utilize iPod hardware in new ways, don't consumers have a right to purchase/use this? I don't recall signing a contract when I bought my iPod shuffle. And, as a consumer, I will state that the more functionality the better. This is why I hate that Apple bullies people out of using their iPods with different software and stops hardware makers from integrating with iTunes directly. It's borderline monopolistic in the same way IE was bundled with Windows.
... discussions about circumventing the company's music-playback software for iPods and iPhones ...
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. But from Apple's latest letter:
As you know, Apple's objection about the "iTunesDB Pages" (as referenced in your complaint in this matter), sent to OdioWorks over seven months ago, centered on the publication of certain Apple code on those Pages. Since that time, Apple has stopped utilizing the code in question, rendering the code obsolete for the purposes at issue in this action. Publishing that code is no longer of any harm or benefit to anyone.
So I am to believe that there was a potential exploit in the Apple code that the wiki pages talked about exploiting and Apple has since removed/patched that code to be non-exploitable? I don't think Apple backed down, I think they just stopped discussion until they could render the exploit a non-issue.
My work here is dung.
Actually, this kind of crap always swirls around Steve Jobs. Remember the stinky way they got around the Mac OS licenses? Ethical, it wasn't. Not even slightly.
>>>In other words, Apple is the new Microsoft
No. Apple is just like any other business that seeks to hold onto a monopoly. MS, Comcast, Cox, OPEC... they all act alike because they all share the same fundamental fear of loss. They don't want to lose the market, or the money that comes with it. It's basic human instinct made manifest at the mega-corporate level.
As for the DMCA Notice:
I wouldn't be happy, but I would look at it as an opportunity. First it's a chance to refuse to comply and stand-up for my second basic right of free speech (with the most basic right being ownership of my body and my mouth). Second I've never been inside a courtroom, so it would be a new and exciting experience (life is dull). And third given how long these things typically drag-out (4-5 years), I could earn a law degree. My thesis would be about my self and my case.
Okay I'm just joking on that last bit.
But I'd still look at the notice as an opportunity not a tragedy. Court cases are how you change legal interpretation for the better. Example: The guy who was sued by a local mall because he owned a website that provided mall information *prior* to the mall's existence. The mall called it cybersquatting, but the U.S. Supreme Court called it free speech. The interpretation of the law was changed in the favor of the average citizen.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
First, this is what you get when the lawyers hold sway over the techies and visionaries.
Sounds to me more like a legal department that is granted too much independence. "Defend our property, I'm assuming because we pay you so much that you know what's reasonable and what should warrant a lawsuit."
I often find that I'm naive when I assume things about companies though.
Second, why o why don't modern companies just stfu with their legal hollering and get on with making products? If they make good products customers will come flocking and that in and of itself secures brand loyalty.
It's more than just lawsuits. DRM is of course another example of companies foolishly wasting more effort trying to maximize profit than they do making things that are actually profitable.
If you're spend X dollars developing a product and then spend 2X dollars making sure you get all the money you can out of selling it, you need to be sure you couldn't have made even more money in the long term by spending that 2X$ on another product. Do companies actually do that ever? I don't work at any of them, but it doesn't seem like they do.
You really thought Apple wasn't all about lock-in? Apple is the last vestige of the old proprietary hardware + software-stack business model that MS "rescued" us from in the 80's. Ever since DOS/PC, we have had Free hardware, a necessary step to Free software. Apple has always been a step backwards in Freedom.
(yeah, I see the gross oversimplifications above, but the message is the same)
"Knowledge is the only instrument of production that is not subject to diminishing returns" -Journal of Political Econom
Plenty of people and companies "play". There are countless products and open source projects that interoperate with Apple products.
The particular niches which Apple tries hard to defend are a tiny proportion, and all have sound business reasons. So yes, it really is about making profit, not character flaws.
The same thing they always do? Move on once the technology becomes ubiquitous, and develop more boundary-breaking, bleeding-edge devices and services? Just look: the iMac colors (which happened right after Steve got back in the driver's seat in the 90's), which were originally...original, and then became more and more ubiquitous (remember the many colors of the Nintendo 64 and Gamecube?). So after colors became useful, they decided to shift to glossy white iPods and laptops, which people then copied (what color is the Wii and certain Sony laptops?). So, then they shifted to multiple colors of iPod nanos. And then the iPod Touch and iPhone came out and its totally white, metallic, and black. And now have you seen the many iPhone knockoffs from LG?
Tons of people had mp3 players, and then Apple came out with one that didn't use WMP's shitty syncronization software and actually worked, worked well, and was easy to operate for complete dipshits. And it sold. But then Microsoft tried to shoehorn itself into the market with the Zune, so Apple took it up a notch and came out with the iPod Touch and iPhone, and the app store. Does the Zune have a similar store? Nope (or it sucks a hell of a lot more). Did the Zune have sync software that worked? Nope, it used WMP's still shitty sync with extra sparkles but didn't actually sync (happened to two of my friends who bought Zunes, I've never had a problem with my iPod, which is 3 years old and the only Apple product I have).
So what do I think Apple is going to do with their next iteration? I have no fucking clue.* It may not be big and ground-breaking for awhile, but they will eventually come out with something that is. It's what Apple does. It's called competition, and while you may run from it, keep in mind there are plenty of other people jumping at the bit to take your place in line for iPhones on the day of release (not me though...college...no money, etc.).
* Actually, I think they're coming out with a usable tablet with multitouch, but that's just what I want from Apple, so I'm definitely biased.
As an ex-Apple advocate, I disagree. They want control for the sake of control. They're limited in what they can do because they also want to remain profitable.
I supported Apple over MS within the company I worked for for decades...but when it came time that people were willing to listen, I'd switched to supporting Linux. So the company went to Linux. And it's because Apple made things too difficult if you wanted to do something that wasn't what Apple had in mind.
(My personal switch to Linux was because I could run Linux on the same hardware I had been running MSWind on. I dual booted for 2-3 years. But at that time I'd have supported Apple for anyone who wasn't a real techie. During that time Apple changed their EULAs to the point that I considered them no better than MS. Apple has fewer viruses, but MS was cheaper [in every sense of the word].)
Now... now I can't think of a purpose for which I'd recommend either MS or Apple. It's largely due to legal agreements, and partially due to technical restrictions. And, of course, price is also a factor. Linux is lots cheaper when you start counting in the cost of ancillary applications.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.