Apple backs off Bluwiki legal threats in censorship dispute

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 43
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post


    Speaking of definitions, the word "censorship" has been grossly misapplied here. Apple has no power to "censor" anyone, since by definition, this is an official/governmental act. One of the reasons why I've refused to support EFF (and many of their good works) over the years, is because of their tendency to use hyperbolic language like this. Apple may have been attempting to bully and even suppress, but they were not trying to censor -- because this is beyond their powers. So just tell the truth without the rhetorical deceptions. Is that so hard?



    I think the concept of "censorship" includes the idea that it is done by an official or government, because it is done with the coercive force and authority of government or an official therein. When an organization becomes able to effectually do the same thing as is done by government/officials, because they have the same or similar coercive authority/means to block/silence the voices of others, it is hard to imagine that this is merely "suppression"; this is, in effect, censorship.



    Certainly censorship is bullying; however censorship is not merely "suppression" or "bullying", it is the "blocking" and "silencing" of content, where the agent-owner of that content or that voice has no avenue of appeal, no meaningful recourse.



    If I am Crest Toothpaste, and I buy all of the media companies, and I refuse to sell advertising space to competing toothpastes, and I refuse to allow any television program to mention or show other toothpastes, I am not merely "suppressing", I am censoring, especially if this process includes the revision of content for the purpose of achieving my "suppression" or "censorship" objectives.



    Effectual censorship can be achieved without the action of government or officials, it can be achieved by individuals or organizations whose coercive force derives not from government or official, and can be perpetuated by official/governmental inaction (ie. when the government does not protect individuals from these belligerently coercive powers that, in effect, censor on otherwise free citizenry).
  • Reply 42 of 43
    lfmorrisonlfmorrison Posts: 698member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Abster2core View Post


    As previously quoted:



    Frequently Asked Questions (and Answers) about Reverse Engineering



    Question: Is the reverse engineering of a technological protection measure illegal under the DMCA?



    (...)



    As tabled above, perhaps looking at it in point form will help the understanding.

    (...)
    • The reverse engineer is required to ask permission first, however.




    Thanks for the reply, but frankly, instead of actually answering my question (ie what part of the DMCA's language actually leads to the conclusion that you need to ask permission), you've basically just restated your initial blanket statement (that you have to ask for permission) in a different form, without actually offering any explanation.



    Quote:

    One thing for sure, it is illegal to reverse engineer a software if your program was solely developed to access protected works for infringing purposes, e.g., as Palm is attempting to do with the Pre to get music out of the iTunes Store.



    That's another interesting point. This sort of reverse-engineering work is the thing that would make it possible, for example, to create a plug-in for WinAMP so that you can synch your iPod with it instead of iTunes. Your argument, then, is that it's an infringement to use the iPod without also using iTunes. I'm not at all convinced that would constitute an infringing purpose. It seems to me, in fact, that this exactly fits the definition of the sort of interoperability that the exemption was envisioned to facilitate.



    You already have the ability and fair use rights to playback non-DRM music that you legitimately possess, on any 3rd party music player, so this reverse-engineering process is not providing you with any additional infringing access to the copyrighted music that you wouldn't have had otherwise; and any FairPlay (or other scheme) DRM-protected music still won't play on the 3rd-party player, even with this reverse-engineered solution.
  • Reply 43 of 43
    The Electronic Frontier Foundation, which was the Web site's legal representation, announced the development Wednesday.



    Bluwiki offered a set of anonymous user-created wiki pages where users explained how to sync media with iPods and iPhones without the use of iTunes. That drew legal threats from Apple, which prompted the Web site to fire back.



    OdioWorks, which runs the free and open wiki service BluWiki, wanted to bar Apple from repeatedly threatening its own legal action for letting BluWiki users host a wiki for iTunesDB.



    iTunesDB is a project to learn about iTunes' database file system and create third-party software that can replicate the sync functionality of iTunes for iPhones and iPods without forcing users to run Apple's own media software.



    Starting in Nov. 2008, Apple, through a series of lawsuits, claimed the very existence of iTunesDB violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'s rules on circumventing copyright locks and successfully frightened OdioWorks into taking down the wiki entries.



    Then, in April 2009, the EFF and Keker & Van Nests, a San Francisco-based law firm, returned fire, suing Apple on behalf of OdioWorks. They asked a court to reject Apple's claims and allow Bluwiki to restore the pages in question.



    But earlier this month, Apple sent a letter withdrawing its cease and desist demands, and EFF responded in kind, moving to dismiss its complaint against Apple.



    "Apple no longer has, nor will it have in the future, any objection to the publication of the iTunesDB Pages," Apple's letter reads.



    "While we are glad that Apple retracted its baseless legal threats, we are disappointed that it only came after 7 months of censorship and a lawsuit," EFF Senior Staff Attorney Fred von Lohmann said in a statement. "Because Apple continues to use technical measures to lock iPod Touch and iPhone owners into -- and Palm Pre owners out of -- using Apple's iTunes software, I wouldn't be surprised if there are more discussions among frustrated customers about reverse engineering Apple products. We hope Apple has learned its lesson here and will give those online discussions a wide berth in the future."
Sign In or Register to comment.