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.
>>>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
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