Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Portables (Apple) The Courts Businesses Desktops (Apple) Government Media Software The Almighty Buck Youtube News Apple Hardware Technology

Man Who Teaches People How To Repair Their MacBooks Alludes To Apple Lawsuit (gamerevolution.com) 150

Posted by BeauHD from the under-attack dept.
New submitter alzoron writes: After the failure of New York's Fair Repair Act, independent third-party unauthorized Apple repair shops seem to be under attack. Louis Rossmann, owner of Rossman Repair Group, INC has uploaded a somewhat vague video alluding to his Youtube site, where he posts videos about repairing out of warranty repairs, possibly being shut down. Several sources (Reddit, Mac Kung Fu, 9to5Mac) have been speculating about this and whether or not Apple is behind this. Game Revolution reported on the video (Link is to cache version of the site since the report has since been removed), breaking down each section of the video. 6:52: Louis informs viewers that they can download YouTube videos. 7:41: Louis mentions that YouTube channels have a "finite lifespan," often because a large corporation has the power and money to shut them down. 8:42: Louis shares that he's happy when he's lived a difficult life so that he can be strong for the immense challenge that is ahead. 10:06: Louis shares that he is going to have to fight from his point onward. 11:22: Louis states that all his videos may soon be gone. 11:32: Louis mentions that his business may disappear. Given what Louis has mentioned, it's apparent that Louis has been threatened by Apple likely for condemning its policies to a growing subscriber base, but also for showing users how to repair its hardware without going through Apple support.

UPDATE 7/1/16: The headline has been updated to clarify that the lawsuit is unconfirmed. We'll continue to update the story as it develops.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Man Who Teaches People How To Repair Their MacBooks Alludes To Apple Lawsuit More

Man Who Teaches People How To Repair Their MacBooks Alludes To Apple Lawsuit

Comments Filter:

  • This guy has a massive pariah complex, and great job feeding it, slashdot.

    It appears the guy is using Apple-copyrighted schematics. If he wants his youtube videos to stay up it's really simple to just not put them in the video. Just draw your own representation of the part of the circuit you are working on and put that up.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by hsmith ( 818216 )
      Guy is a whiner. Every one of his videos is bitching about Apple. Then this one is a vaguebook "I can't say too much, woe is me I had a hard life" garbage. He did fuck up by showing the schematics on video and talking about them endlessly.

      But this guy has been gaming Reddit for "viral" content and look here how he now is on /., surprise!

      • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:5, Insightful)

        by l.a.rossmann ( 3531711 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:35PM (#52430133)

        I suppose I should rejoice at error 53, GPU failures with no extended warranty, and touch IC flaws. Thank you for creating a device where the touchIC becomes desoldered from the board right outside of warranty. God bless your souls!!!

        No, man. When something isn't the way it should be, you say something about it.

        I would say the title could have used some work... it's jumping to a conclusion.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Anonymous Coward

          Error 53 is because of crappy repair places that, when replacing a cracked screen, replace the entire front assembly (which the Home button with the TouchID sensor is attached to) because it's faster and easier, rather than moving the existing Home button to the new front assembly like they should.

          And then, because the original TouchID sensor inside the Home button is cryptographically paired to the CPU's secure enclave but the "new" one is not, the operating system gives Error 53 and refuses to boot to mak

      • Everyone is a hero until the Cockroach flies.

    • This guy has a massive pariah complex

      I've always wanted to live in one of those!

    • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by LetterRip ( 30937 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:48PM (#52430205)

      Education and commentary is a fair use exception to copyright. He was clearly using them for educational purposes and commentary and therefore they are almost certainly fair use.

      • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:4, Interesting)

        by l.a.rossmann ( 3531711 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:51PM (#52430225)

        I would say if this is does not constitute educational fair use than I do not know what is. You can only see tiny snippets, you are missing all of the information required to actually design this product.

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by mysidia ( 191772 )

        Except, the case he makes probably better be that they are non-copyrightable..... Because in past videos he has mentioned obtaining the schematics from illegal Romanian FTP servers.

        If the copy of the work you possessed before 'using' it was illegal in the first place, and used the work for commercial gain, then fair use defense will be hard.

        If he gets challenged on the use of dodgy schematics in his own repair jobs, and that's not defensible, then he could face Disgorgement of every $$$ he ever ear

        • There is likely an anti-trust defense available here though. It may also be hard for Apple to prove damages, or the legal relation between the infringement and the profits from repair, as reversed schematics (which are entirely legal) from other sources would have worked just as well. My guess is that statutory damages per manual would be used anyways. Apple doesn't want the money, they just want to ruin independent repair shops.

        • car manufacturers do the same BS in that independent repair shops have to get software and manuals form iffy places as they can't buy them.

          • Indeed, and to further the point, once they get their hands on the material it is fully legal to use and possess. I would expect a lawyer worth even as little as $1/hr would be able to successfully argue that this should be no different.

    • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:5, Insightful)

      by mysidia ( 191772 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @06:00PM (#52430275)

      I don't see why this is "front page news" at this point. The video is all innuento. No facts. Nothing concrete. Nothing corroborated. There is no news story!

      It appears the guy is using Apple-copyrighted schematics.

      IF that's their beef, then I hope Rossman takes them to task for it.
      Board schematics are a factual description of a physical object. Factual information cannot be copyrighted; 1st amendment issue. You can patent the board, but that doesn't allow you to prevent dissemination of facts..

      • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:4, Insightful)

        by msauve ( 701917 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @06:12PM (#52430353)
        "Board schematics are a factual description of a physical object."

        You've obviously not dealt with electronics much. If it was just a netlist, I might agree, but drawing good schematics is an art requiring skill.
        • Doesn't matter if it requires skill, what matters weather it is a a factual or creative expression.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by msauve ( 701917 )
            Whoosh. That's a non-sequitur. Skill implies creative expression, which any decent schematic demonstrates.

            Contrast a clear, easily understood schematic with one with the components randomly distributed and ratsnest of interconnections.
            • Clarity is a functional requirement, So clear vs. not clear can't be grounds for copyright-ability. To count as a creative work, it must be improbable that someone else would independently make an identical work. It is not unreasonable to assume that in some areas two skilled people has some significant probability of ending up with the same result.

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by msauve ( 701917 )
                "To count as a creative work, it must be improbable that someone else would independently make an identical work."

                So, you agree that good schematics are creative. Why didn't you simply agree in the first place?
                • A "bad " novel is just as eligible for copyright protection as a good one. Skill does not make the resulting work eligible for copyright. I don't categorically agree or disagree, a specific schematic may or may not count as a creative work in the definition. Put the ten best novelist in the world and ask them to write a book with 22 specific plot points, you have zero chance of any two books being the same. If you ask the 10 best schematic drafters to draw a circuit with 22 components, I would bet there
        • Watch a few of his videos; they're not good schematics.

      • Re:it can't be for distributing copyrighted materi (Score:4, Interesting)

        by Wrath0fb0b ( 302444 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @07:20PM (#52430665)

        Board schematics are a factual description of a physical object. Factual information cannot be copyrighted; 1st amendment issue. You can patent the board, but that doesn't allow you to prevent dissemination of facts..

        YANAL, and you have misinterpreted the distinction between facts that cannot be copyrighted, and a particular representation of facts that can be copyrighted.

        For instance, I can open the phonebook and copy the entries into a separate database and sell it, because the phone numbers themselves are facts that are not covered by copyright, see [1]. But I could not photocopy an entire page of the phonebook and sell it elsewhere without permission. Similarly, I can take the same ingredients/methods in a recipe book and republish those recipes, see [2]. But I cannot simply photocopy the recipe book and sell it as my own. To quote [2] at length (my emphasis):

        [PLAINTIFF's] compilation copyright in [ORIGINAL WORK] therefore may not extend to cover the individual recipes themselves, only the manner and order in which they are presented. Because the record demonstrates that the [DEFENDANT] offer these recipes in substantially altered form and in a manner and order different from that found in [ORIGINAL WORK] we hold that [PLAINTIFF] has not demonstrated the requisite likelihood of success on the merits.

        So the question here is did the defendant copy the schematics verbatim or he did he read the schematics and produce a different form of the same factual information separately? Until you answer that question, you cannot reach the question of whether he violated Apple's copyright in the schematic.

        [ And, FWIW, I haven't seen the schematics he posted versus the originals, so I can't answer that question and take a side. ]

        Further Reading:

        [1] Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Tel. Serv. Co., 499 U.S. 340, 347 (1991)
        [2] Publications International v Meredith Corp., 88 F.3d 473 (7th Cir., 1996)

      • It is an expression of them.

        You cannot prevent distribution of the facts. That's why I said he should make his own representation of the facts and distribute that.

        But you don't have a clear cut right to redistribute someone else's copyrighted expression of the information.

        I've seen his videos, he only shows a small section of the schematic. He should just redraw that section himself and use that in his video. It's easy.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by VTBlue ( 600055 )

      Usage of copyrighted Repair manuals can constitute fair use. Though Apple will force a court hearing to mount such a defense.

      http://www.internetlibrary.com... [internetlibrary.com]

    • Fair use, he doesn't make the them available in whole, and the videos are educational in nature.

    • He did this imminent threat routine just last September/October with Yelp, putting warnings all over his videos about the threat of them being taken down.

      Probably gets a lot of traffic.

  • Shorter version: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kohath ( 38547 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:11PM (#52430003)

    Self-promoter promotes himself with vague claims. Also, you're supposed to be mad at Apple because someone -- possibly a lawyer who wants to file a class action lawsuit -- has figured out a way to personally benefit if enough people are mad at Apple.

  • Slashdot resorting to bible verses (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward

    6:52: Jesus informs viewers that they can download YouTube videos.
    7:41: Jesus mentions that YouTube channels have a "finite lifespan,"
    8:42: Jesus shares that he's happy when he's lived a difficult life so that he can be strong for the immense challenge that is ahead.
    10:06: Jesus shares that he is going to have to fight from his point onward.
    11:22: Jesus states that all his videos may soon be gone.
    11:32: Jesus mentions that his business may disappear

  • For Apple conspiring to make repairs as much as a new device.

  • Mislead in the headline much? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ErikTheRed ( 162431 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:21PM (#52430053) Homepage

    There is *speculation* that takedowns are coming from Apple, but no actual evidence and generally speaking DMCA notices have names (at least of a law firm) attached. As news sources go, Reddit forums rank right up there with the National Enquirer. There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash Apple: political censorship, slumping software quality, etc. No need to invent fake ones.

    • I am kinda surprised that made the headline myself.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Desler ( 1608317 )

      Nuh uh! The summary says it's apparent that he has been threatened by Apple. How dare you second guess the infallibility of the summary!

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by PopeRatzo ( 965947 )

      There are plenty of legitimate reasons to bash Apple: political censorship, slumping software quality, etc. No need to invent fake ones.

      It's not fake to point out that Apple is shitty to people who want to fix their own Apple products, that they fucking own.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        It's not fake to point out that Apple is shitty to people who want to fix their own Apple products, that they fucking own.

        That's not the problem. The problem is the vast majority of people do not have the skill to do so.

        Warranty fraud is huge. You wonder why Apple put those moisture sensors in everything? Because people have claimed they did not drop their thing in water. Even if it's soaking wet, the screen's got fog on it, and there's a huge puddle of water centered around said thing, if not already dripp

        • That was a pretty speech, but does it explain why Apple makes it impossible to change a fucking battery? I'm amused when companies hate their own customers to this extent.

  • I see the pro-Apple Astroturfing is Strong (Score:3, Informative)

    by philovivero ( 321158 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:21PM (#52430055) Homepage Journal

    This guy is a modern hero. He works extremely hard to make the world a better place. He's well-spoken, selfless, and kind. I'm glad people like Louis Rossmann are out there in the world, doing what they do.

    He reminds me a bit of Mister Rogers. Someone who you can look to and say: "This is how all people should be. This is how all people should act." And then smile.

    Thanks for helping us out, Louis. I hope we can find some ways to help you out, too. Remember, don't be hesitant to take help from people. There are a lot of us in your court.

  • The FTC is to blame for this (Score:5, Insightful)

    by casings ( 257363 ) on Friday July 01, 2016 @05:21PM (#52430059)

    The Clayton Act made both substantive and procedural modifications to federal antitrust law. Substantively, the act seeks to capture anticompetitive practices in their incipiency by prohibiting particular types of conduct, not deemed in the best interest of a competitive market. There are 4 sections of the bill that proposed substantive changes in the antitrust laws by way of supplementing the Sherman Antitrust Act of 1890. In those sections, the Act thoroughly discusses the following four principles of economic trade and business:

    price discrimination between different purchasers if such a discrimination substantially lessens competition or tends to create a monopoly in any line of commerce (Act Section 2, codified at 15 U.S.C. 13);
    sales on the condition that (A) the buyer or lessee not deal with the competitors of the seller or lessor ("exclusive dealings") or (B) the buyer also purchase another different product ("tying") but only when these acts substantially lessen competition (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14);
    mergers and acquisitions where the effect may substantially lessen competition (Act Section 7, codified at 15 U.S.C. 18) or where the voting securities and assets threshold is met (Act Section 7a, codified at 15 U.S.C. 18a);
    any person from being a director of two or more competing corporations, if those corporations would violate the anti-trust criteria by merging (Act Section 8; codified 1200 at 15 U.S.C. 19).

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

    Specifically product trying (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14).

    Apple has been tying its products together for years:

    • OS X must be only bought with a mac computer for instance and only on their hardware. Same with iOS presumably.
    • Apple's behavior with their iphone platform, only allowing approved applications onto their service, and must get a cut of the sales. You know for your protection.
    • Obviously this current example of tying apple support with their apple products.

    Really the FTC needs to step in and annihilate this behavior, if they can't play fairly, then they don't deserve to play at all.

    • "Apple has been tying its products together for years:" They have been doing this since day one. There are just more products today. This business model was almost their undoing back in the mid 90's. They were within weeks of bankruptcy when MS invested $150 million which allowed Apple to consolidate their Mac business and put their cash flow into the iPod and iTunes products and the rest is history.

      • *sigh*

        MS just can't keep from fucking up, can they?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, the $150 million was part of a settlement resulting from Microsoft essentially stealing the source code for QuickTime for Windows and using it to make Microsoft's Video For Windows (at a time when Windows had no built-in video playback framework, and Apple embarrassed them by bringing QuickTime to Windows before MS had their own video framework). Apple had caught Microsoft red-handed, so the settlement was for Microsoft to buy $150 million in non-voting stock and port Internet Explorer and MS Office to

      • Microsoft only kept Apple alive to provide an alternative to avoid anti-trust issues...

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

      Specifically product trying (Act Section 3, codified at 15 U.S.C. 14).

      You know what's odd? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/14 [cornell.edu] The actual law makes no mention of tying in that section.

      15 U.S. Code 14 - Sale, etc., on agreement not to use goods of competitor

      It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, to lease or make a sale or contract for sale of goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities, whether patented or unpatented, for use, consumption, or resale within the United States or any Territory thereof or the District of Columbia or any insular possession or other place under the jurisdiction of the United States, or fix a price charged therefor, or discount from, or rebate upon, such price, on the condition, agreement, or understanding that the lessee or purchaser thereof shall not use or deal in the goods, wares, merchandise, machinery, supplies, or other commodities of a competitor or competitors of the lessor or seller, where the effect of such lease, sale, or contract for sale or such condition, agreement, or understanding may be to substantially lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.

  • OK, that's enough (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    I'm done. Slashdot is an avenue of pure hate on anything other than what the editors approve. The Apple hate is pathetic.

    This article was complete and utter garbage. No wonder their page ranking has dropped so much as they keep losing their audience.

    I remember the good old days with Cmdr Taco. This would never have been tolerated.

    • I'm done. Slashdot is an avenue of pure hate on anything other than what the editors approve. The Apple hate is pathetic.

      There is nothing so sweet as seeing an actual, "Goodbye, Cruel World" post in the wild.

    • I guess its all well and good to hate on everything, except your guys right?

  • I am sorry, you can't show someone how to fix a car.

    • Actually - Ford/Chevy/Chrysler do exactly the same thing Apple (may be) doing: they jealously guard the copyright on their official repair schematics. Car repair shops pay a LOT of money to get them... and they are regularly traded illegally online.

      If someone had a Youtube channel where they were showing copyright infringing schematics of Ford/Chevy/Chrysler cars the way this guy did for Apple computer schematics... they would be ALL OVER IT trying to shut it down.

      Apple doesn't care if you tell people how

      • What's interesting is that, because the car makers often make the manuals unavailable, or only available under onerous terms or fees, the possession and use of an illicit copy of such a manual in the course of a repair has been legislated to be fair use. Because possession of the manual is fair use, any other fair use of the material is also defensible; for example, education, criticism, commentary, or parody. It's still technically illegal to distribute the manuals (outside of the fair use exceptions), but

    • We ain't that far from this. Have you tried doing any kind of work on a recent model? Good luck, without the necessary software you MIGHT be able to change the oil, provided that's not somehow hardwired into the board computer yet to limit you to 30 mph "for your safety" 'til you go to an authorized dealer and pay him to convince it that the oil was indeed changed.

  • 00:01 (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Louis forgot to take his meds.

  • Glad /. picked this up. The tone in his voice with the last video is familiar... because it was my own. FWIW, I emerged victorious from my own battle.

  • The idea to "copyright" the physical description of the device, and hence repair instructions, was a legal maneuver to end-run the warranty laws after Vance Packard's 1960 seminal expose "The Waste Makers" described efforts to insert parts that would fail and other "planned obsolescence" laws. By the 1990s, Hitachi was the only electronics manufacturer to allow its repair manuals to be issued online.

    This is a major reason that used electronics get exported to countries where repair is common and $100 legal

  • videos about repairing out of warranty repairs

    I herd u like repairs...

  • At least not at this time, see Louis' video update: there's no lawsuit, Apple & co *like* my channel??? [youtube.com]

  • "UPDATE 7/1/16: The headline has been updated to clarify that the lawsuit is unconfirmed. We'll continue to update the story as it develops. as it develops."

    I wager we are more likely to see a dupe of this story than an update.

Slashdot Top Deals

You are always doing something marginal when the boss drops by your desk.

Close