Apple versus free speech?
We read:
"Apple is being threatened with legal action for silencing an online forum discussing how to use iPods without the need for the iTunes website. Lawyers from the non-profit Electronic Frontier Foundation have teamed up with OdioWorks' legal team to file a lawsuit against California-based Apple, after it told OdioWorks to shut down one of its websites' forums.
The website in question, BluWiki, operates as a public service, allowing visitors to freely edit content on its web pages in a Wikipedia-style collaborative effort.
On one of BluWiki's forums last year, "hobbyists" posted information detailing ways to get Apple's iPhones and iPod MP3 players to synchronise music and video files with websites other than iTunes, such as Songbird, Banshee, Rockbox, and Winamp. BluWiki terminated the forum late last year after Apple's lawyers threatened to sue parent company OdioWorks for spreading methods of how to circumnavigate its digital rights management technology, otherwise known as "reverse engineering".
According to the EFF, Apple alleged this type of discussion constituted copyright infringement, as it strongly guards iTunes' status as an exclusive content delivery and management tool for all iPod and iPhone hardware.
Fred von Lohmann, EFF senior staff lawyer, argued: "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 these discussions."
Source
15 comments:
Oh Apple, it is way too late now. Once that kind of info is out on the net, its out there. And any legal action to insure it isn't, will motive people to share it and spread to every corner of earth.
I know you want to protect your products, but you got to face it; Elvis has left the building.
If Microsoft pulled off 1/10 the protectivism that Apple does, the antitrust lawyers would be mass marching into court in both the US and EU. Apple has always been the darling of the left and ‘correct’ thinking people. Even Apple’s commercials are based on sarcasm and not logic, typical leftist approach.
INSATIABLE GREED!
Except as and only to the extent expressly permitted in this License or by applicable law, you may not copy, decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble,
attempt to derive the source code of, decrypt, modify, or create derivative works of the iPod Software, iPod Software Updates, or any part thereof. Any attempt
to do so is a violation of the rights of Apple and its licensors of the iPod Software and iPod Software Updates. If you breach this restriction, you may be subject to prosecution and damages. By storing content on your iPod you are making a digital copy. In some jurisdictions, it is unlawful to make digital copies without
prior permission from the rightsholder. The iPod Software and iPod Software Updates may be used to reproduce materials so long as such use is limited to
reproduction of non-copyrighted materials, materials in which you own the copyright, or materials you are authorized or legally permitted to reproduce.
Since when is it ok to break a contract? You agree to the license agreement when you buy the product. Every company has the right to protect their product. By posting an article showing how to break these laws, the authors have basically admitted that they broke these laws themselves and should be subject to prosecution. Breach of contract should not be taken so lightly.
Since when is it ok to break a contract? You agree to the license agreement when you buy the product. To some extent, this is true. However, courts have held that some TOS agreements are so overly broad and incomprehensible that they cannot be enforced. I am not saying that has happened here, but there are cases where a one sided "contract" has been voided because it is so one sided.
Every company has the right to protect their product....... by legal means, yes.
By posting an article showing how to break these laws,The only "law" that I can think of that was "broken" was the DMCA. It does allow the company to protect it's intellectual property. However, in at least one case, a court found that there was no DMCA violation when a person reverse engineered a product to add additional functionality which the manufacturor had not planned on making available.
the authors have basically admitted that they broke these laws themselves and should be subject to prosecution. Breach of contract should not be taken so lightly."Breech of contract" is not something that is "prosecuted." It is a civil issue.
Actually, using reverse engineering to copy a competitor's product in order to sell the copies is illegal.
But the EFF isn't known for their respect of intellectual property law (in fact they're opposed to the very existence of those laws).
Anon 4:57: Youre right. Its illegal to use "reverse engineering to copy a competitor's product in order to sell the copies". What about if your not selling the copy, but giving it away for free?
What about if your not selling the copy, but giving it away for free?Still illegal.
The theory is that you are taking away the money the person or company would have made if not for you giving it away.
Telling someone how to do something is not the same as actually doing it.
Once you go Mac, you never go back.
Well I cannot read the agreement until I buy the product and open it up. I then need to break the seal which in many cases will cause vendors to give you a hassle or charge a restock fee if they will take it back at all! I have refused to buy and IPOD for that exact reason. I refuse to use I-tunes. I found out that Media Monkey works great with the IPOD so I am going to go that route to use my own MP's and software I select. Itunes is SLOW.
Telling someone how to do something is not the same as actually doing it.Correct.
But both are illegal under the DMCA.
Visual "beauty" is just one factor.
Being a "White, hethrosexual male" I happen to be visually attracted to "White, blue-eyed blondes" and I'm repulsed by "Black females". That's a simple fact.
Another factor is a less overt one, but never the less very important.
phrenomes or the effect of the scent of a person has on another is paramount in establishing a strong sexual bond.
Judge for youselves but my experience has proven (to me) that Black women do not emit sensual phrenomes. They repel me.
Blue-eyed bondes (for the most part) DO smell sweet to me and their body aroma arouses me even when their visual appearence isn't the most appealing.
"Well I cannot read the agreement until I buy the product and open it up. I then need to break the seal which in many cases will cause vendors to give you a hassle or charge a restock fee if they will take it back at all!"
At that point the vendor is breaking the law as well as his contract with the manufacturer which both require him to accept returns like that.
Those "no returns of opened products" clauses were created to combat piracy. Contact the manufacturer directly if the dealer refuses to honour his obligations.
Actually, in this case, the agreement is posted online, and can be read by anyone. I can read the TOS for an IPOD, and I haven't purchased one. I don't have to break the seal if I am worried about what the TOS requires. I remember well the Dilbert cartoon where Dilbert opens software from Microsoft and becomes a servant for Bill Gates. I always look online for the TOS if I am planning on using something in a manner not planned on by the company (like in an educational experiment)
Post a Comment