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."

Comments

Without a Care for the Consumer

[eldavojohn]

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.

Re:Without a Care for the Consumer

[91degrees]

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.

Re:Without a Care for the Consumer

[Late Adopter]

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.

Re:Without a Care for the Consumer

[commodore64_love]

>>>I have to ask: what's Apple's motive here?

Same motive that leads Apple to lock-up its Macintosh hardware. Apple is afraid they might end-up like IBM, who lost control of their PC invention and was undersold by the clones. IBM was lucky that it had lots of other businesses and didn't need the PC to survive, but Apple without the Mac or iPhone or iPod business would probably go bankrupt. Apple doesn't want to join the ranks of Atari or Commodore.

So they stringently enforce control over their hardware, to prevent potential loss of business to clones.

Re:Without a Care for the Consumer

[burnin1965]

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?

The motive is greed, the objective is monopoly control.

Apple makes money off more than just hardware, they make a killing off software and services as well. It is no secret that many businesses in the United States utilize ethically questionable and often times out right illegal business tactics to establish and maintain monopolies that provide an opportunity for the business to control the market prices of their products rather than the other way around.

None of this is new and Federal legislation was passed to provide the Justice Department with the means to stop this type of activity, note the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890 and the Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914. Unfortunately there seems to have been a shift in the thinking in the Executive branch and the Department of Justice as one of the most recent and significant cases, the DOJ case against Microsoft, resulted in a slap on the wrist and business as usual to this day.

Re:Without a Care for the Consumer

[wall0159]

...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.

Apple is the new Microsoft

[Anonymous Coward]

>> 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.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[jpmorgan]

No, they really are. In the past 5-10 years, Apple has risen to a staggering level of popularity, but what has been the end result? More lock-in, more bullying. I think it's important to put this in perspective- Apple eventually dropped their lock-in DRM from the iTMS (but not until more than a year after some of their competitors, like Amazon), and they replaced it with encrypted iPod indexes and legal abuse like this. I understand why they're popular amongst certain groups, but to me they just seem so opposed to the hacker/geek ethos that used to be the rule at places like Slashdot.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[commodore64_love]

>>>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.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[pizzach]

And Apple is getting lambasted sometimes for the wrong reasons just like MS now. Go figure.

I think it's important to put this in perspective- Apple eventually dropped their lock-in DRM from the iTMS (but not until more than a year after some of their competitors, like Amazon)

That is because they were fighting to keep the $1.00 price for all their songs while the record industry wanted tiered pricing. Apparently Apple lost that negotiation in the end...not that you noticed.

For the other Apple related topics...

• You know Pre did what they did for the publicity. Palm is not stupid.
• Developers also know that Apple frequently breaks unofficial APIs. Even Palm devs. This hasn't changed for more than a decade.
• Do you think it's better for the Pre to have it's compatibility broken earlier, or later when there is a huge install base?
• Fixing a TIFF exploit that let users jailbreak (and maybe alternatively get a virus from a webpage) is a major hole. What did you expect them to do? Try to write around the jailbreak code to make sure it works?

Yes, Apple is overly controlling and I personally don't own anything Apple. They should have an API for syncing with iTunes etc. But at least try to keep your comments in perspective please. It doesn't help anyone. Thank you.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[jpmorgan]

Huh? I never mentioned the Pre, which 90% of your comment is about. As for jailbreaking... that's the point. You shouldn't HAVE to rely on a security flaw to do what you want with a phone you own. Apple can even keep their draconian marketplace rules if they want, they just need to let people install apps without going through the app store. This is what Windows Mobile does, and you know what? When your platform is significantly less open than Windows Mobile, you're doing something very wrong.

As it stands Apple won't even allow a C64 emulator because that could let you run C64 games for the iPhone they haven't approved of you playing. WTF? Seriously, what argument is there for that other than Apple being obsessive control freaks?

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[Locklin]

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)

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[tomtomtom]

Sales figures for iPhone are 600% up on the year ago quarter. That seems to indicate they are doing something very right, given that they're a business, not a club for hackers.

How sustainable is that though? At the moment, Apple have the advantage because people don't realise you can put "apps" on other phone models and noone else has a simple "store" for them.

When (not if) that changes, their stupid approval model for apps will ensure that developers focus their efforts elsewhere.

Re:Apple is the new Microsoft

[mjwx]

So they allow free games because...

It's still coming through their distribution source. Developers have to pay US$99 per year if they want to be published, even if they are selling free app's.

What they don't want is people being able to play flash games or ROMS from other sources. This kills the revenue source for selling SDK's as well as that from Tetris clone 297 selling for A$2.99.

Hooray EFF!

[castironpigeon]

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.

Re:Control fetish

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

I've said it for years

[FreeUser]

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.)

Re:I've said it for years

[91degrees]

I've said it for years: Steve Jobs/Apple are Bill Gates/Microsoft wannabes.

It's closer than that. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are very much cut from the same mould. Both ruthless businessmen, both willing to take any opportunity for success. Bill Gates was more successful because he was in the right place at the right time. I dare say if IBM decided to write their own OS, Gates would have had a hugely successful software company but MS wouldn't have dominated the market in the way it has. If IBM had decided to sell rebranded and slightly modified Apples, and made a similar mistake in allowing clones, Apple would probably have dominated the computer market.

Re:I've said it for years

[Nossie]

I've been waiting on that happening ... .... still waiting.

Re:Control fetish

[Chyeld]

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.

Re:Control fetish

[Chyeld]

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'm thinking of an ad campaign...

[NotQuiteReal]

picture this scene; an auditorium full of crazed Apple fanatics, all hailing the speaker - Steve Jobs, up at a podium, and simu-cast on a huge screen.

Suddenly, a pudgy guy in a a rumpled business suit comes running thru the back door, swinging an ugly beige 1980's era PC chassis by its powercord. He runs up the center aisle, and flings it into the big screen, shattering it.

The tag line; I'm free, and I'm a PC.

money talks and money walks

[ivogan]

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.

Wikileaks, Of Course

[Nom du Keyboard]

They should have just moved all the existing pages to Wikileaks during the downtime. A legal discussion that Apple was using legal threats to suppress ought to have qualified.