EFF Sues Apple Over BluWiki Legal Threats 242
Hugh Pickens writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed suit against Apple to defend the First Amendment rights of BluWiki, a noncommercial, public Internet 'wiki' site operated by OdioWorks. Last year, BluWiki users began a discussion about making some Apple iPods and iPhones interoperate with software other than Apple's iTunes. Apple lawyers demanded removal of the content (pdf) sending a letter to OdioWorks, alleging that the discussions constituted copyright infringement and a violation of the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site but has now filed a lawsuit to vindicate its right to restore those discussions (pdf) and seeking a declaratory judgment that the discussions do not violate any of the DMCA's anti-circumvention provisions, and do not infringe any copyrights owned by Apple. 'I take the free speech rights of BluWiki users seriously,' said Sam Odio, owner of OdioWorks. 'Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussions.'"
Random BedHead Ed adds ZDNet quotes EFF's Fred von Lohmann, who says that this is an issue of censorship. 'Wikis and other community sites are home to many vibrant discussions among hobbyists and tinkerers. It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host those discussions.'"
w00t for the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
They keep doing very useful (and thankless) work.
Re:w00t for the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:!streissandeffect (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a story regarding the countersuit to an Apple DMCA takedown notice. The EFF want publicity for this case.
The streisand effect would relate to apple's attempt to supress a few people talking about this on some forum and to shut the forum down, and now a lot more people are aware of the topic, the forum, and are talking about it.
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Insightful)
Chickenshit?
Oh, you mean "Not willing to go to court with Apple and possibly lose his business in damages."
Re:!streissandeffect (Score:1, Insightful)
This is all a result of Apple's initial lawsuit, to try and hide information about making iPods more interoperable. As a result of their trying to hide that information, it has become more visible.
How is that NOT the Streissand effect?
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what they mean by a copyright claim.
Re:What's the Story (Score:5, Insightful)
You accuse the EFF as having a "strong bias... to selectively use facts for propaganda." You provide a link. But that link does not support your accusation at all. Would you like to clarify? Thanks!
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what you get when you create laws that make information illegal. Censorship is nothing but just that: Outlawing certain information, or the spreading thereof.
Re:Chicken (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, they did Sam, because you were too chickenshit to stand up to them. Now you want to stand behind a court decision before you muster up the "courage" to re-post the posts. If you are really concerned, re-post then go to court. Defend your users.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can? What he did was smart. He backed off so they couldn't bury him into the ground in legal crap and then sued for the right to repost the data. His lawyer may be charging on a comission. If they win Sam and his lawyer will get paid, and the data will be restored. If he stood up to Apple at best he would have his information remain on the site, but he would still had spent a lot of money defending himself.
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:4, Insightful)
"Seriously, there's no "Linux compatible" label on their products, so why the fuck would they buy it and THEN complain?"
There's no linux compatible sticker on anything much.
An iPod without the managing capacities of iTunes makes no sense.
Only if you're an idiot. Some of us can use these things called file systems to hold and manipulate files. They've been around a while, surprised you've never heard of them.
They should be buying a mass-storage MP3 player which requires no special software.
Like an iPod? They don't require special software, Apple just deliberately make it difficult to use with other software.
In conclusion, fuck off retard.
Re:w00t for the EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankless? Everyone here (and there are a few hundred thousand) bend over backwards to extoll the virtues of the EFF (and overlook its flaws). They are especially well-funded for a single-issue legal advocacy group, and their members are quoted in the press constantly.
How is that "thankless"? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn to comprehend what's going on. They're not saying it's Apple's fault for not making the iPod compatible, they're saying Apple can't attempt to stop them from doing that work themselves.
It's entirely reasonable for Apple to say "We're not going to support that", but when they say "We're not going to support that and we'll sue you if you try to make it work", we have a fucking problem.
Re:Chicken (Score:4, Insightful)
And what I'm getting at is that unless you are hosting such a site and have refused to obey a cease and desist letter from Apple, inviting them to sue you, you can STFU about his level of courage and your opinion of how he should have shot himself in the foot just to spite Apple.
He is fighting back, in a far more intelligent manner than what you proposed. If he, and you, are right that Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on, then the only harm done is that the project was delayed.
If, however, you both are wrong about Apple's legal strategy and this isn't the making of another SCO level FUD battle, in other words if the judge actually buys Apples arguement, then his method at least protects him and his users from further harm in the matter. Your method simply leaves him bankrupt.
Argue the merits of the case, argue the merits of Apple's business strategy. But unless you've already put your own balls on the fire here, keep your trollish opines on Sam's to yourself.
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you've just outlined the entire MPAA/RIAA prosecution strategy to boot...
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's a civil rights issue.
If I buy a product, I should get to use it any way that I like that is not a genuine patent or copyright infringement.
IOW: If Apple can't proceed here without using/abusing the DMCA then they really shouldn't have any standing.
Reverse engineering and discussing reverse engineering should be speech protected not
just as a civil right but protected as being consistent with the copyright clause of
the US Constitution.
Copyright is meant as a means to SPREAD INFORMATION.
Too many people tend to forget that.
Not going to work... (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts have an easy way out of this one. They'll declare there's no "case or controversy" and dismiss the complaint, just like they did when the RIAA threatned Dr. Felten over releasing watermarking information.
The only way to get heard in court when someone sends you a C&D is to fail to desist, and let them sue you. Of course, given the other side has far more resources, that's kind of like taking up Dirty Harry on his "Do you feel lucky, punk?" challenge.
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there are many perspectives on this. Yours advocates what I've always called "pragmatic", which boils down to (using your words) "path of least resistance" while accomplishing the desired affect. In many arenas, I'm like that too.
Others want the iPod (why? I dunno. It's spiffy and has neato features, and don't underestimate the power of "cool" and technofetishism.) But they don't want to be locked into iTunes. So, they find ways to overcome Apple's artificial monopoly-enforcement tool. I admire the tenacity, and wish them the best.
Me? I don't buy Apple stuff, not merely to avoid their lock-in traps, but as an actual statement. They get no money from me as long as they continue to use the courts and their own internal censorship systems (thread suppression on Apple fora) as their way of enforcing their vision of the world on their customers. Respect first sale and the customer's inherent right of use, and we can do business, Apple.
But that's just me.
Besides, I'm so old and crusty that I don't even bother with those new-fangled digital audio doohickeys. Now get offa my lawn!
Re:What's the Story (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you quickly scrolled through the comments..."
You honestly expect me to waste my time searching for evidence to support an accusation made by an anonymous coward? Seriously?
The EFF is an advocacy group pushing an agenda. I have no doubt that the group manipulates facts to further its agenda. This is not based on any actions of the EFF, but is based on advocacy groups in general.
However, before I make a specific accusation about the EFF I'd want my facts straight. Giving a link to posting which does not back up my accusation is not good enough. And expecting people to go through 1079 comments to find my evidence is ludicrous.
Here's how you do it. Take the EFF press release, take the "real facts" behind the story, and show how the EFF twisted the facts. It would not be hard to do.
Of course you'll argue that I could do it. But it's not my accusation. So why would I do it?!
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's violating your civil rights by offering you a product that requires special software.
That depends.
they're not violating your rights by not providing it for your platform of choice, or where it genuinely requires special software.
They ARE violating your civil rights by stopping you even talking about creating other software.
This is not "OMFG! Apple don't support linux! OMFG!", it's "A corporate behemoth is shutting down forums that talk about making other ways to interface with products we have legally bought"
Not all of those limitations are purely technical - a good many of them are commercial.
And most of the commercial ones are not or should not be legal with a device I bought. You don't get to tell me how to use the chair I bought from you, apple don't get the right to tell me how to use the iPod. They don't have to support it, but they have no right to stop me taking it apart, talking to it with other software or shoving it up my arse if that's what I want to do.
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I hate Apple too due to their legal threats and libellous advertising. It just so happens I had a rational argument against them this time, plus they're not the only offenders when it comes to proprietary lock-in. I'm also happy to see the EFF probing the DMCA from every angle to find the loopholes or dissolve it outright. However, like my subject says, if you buy a tool because of what it might be some day then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Apple - Think Different (and we'll sue you)
Re:First Amendment Apple better KNOCK this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:This is not a first amendment issue (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress enacted the law which Apple claims as the grounds for its action.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:First Amendment Apple better KNOCK this (Score:3, Insightful)
sooo much more open?
If you're going to boycott every company that pulls this kind of crap, get ready to grow your own food and cultivate your own penicillin too. Monsanto and the drug companies make Apple look like total hippies.
After high school, you'll find out that they ALL play dirty. It won't change unless we reform our "IP" laws.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)