A win for people who hate the DMCA and censorship. As we reported on earlier this year, Apple pressured the public wiki site Bluwiki into removing several pages about how to sync iPods and other devices with the iTunes database without actually going through iTunes. Apple invoked the DMCA and sent several cease and desist letters, after which Bluwiki removed the pages in question. However, the Electronic Frontier Foundation got involved, and together with law firm Keker & Van Nest they sued Apple. It worked.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2006-04-03
...that people expect Apple to allow third party devices to use iTunes. iTunes was created as a conduit and management application for the iPod and has grown from there, just like Nokia have their software for their phones, Canon (or HP or any of the others) have software for the scanners or cameras, and many of those apps will only work with devices from the respective companies. Why is it that Apple have to allow others to use iTunes just because they created and dominate a market segment?
Member since:2005-06-29
For the same reason Microsoft must publish interoperability information to third parties such as SAMBA.
This is a new world for Apple: a monopoly. Now, they are being treated the same way that Microsoft has been treated. And that's a good thing. Just as much as Microsoft must play nice with everyone else, so must Apple.
Member since:2006-04-03
Except I was talking about the reference in the article to people expecting Apple to allow other devices to use iTunes. I agree that the web site in question should be allowed to publish those details.
In reference to Microsoft playing nice though, how many years and how many law suits did it take to get Microsoft to play nice on a number of fronts? Microsoft used whatever means they had at their disposal to prevent a lot of information from being published for a long time too, so it would be foolish to think that Apple won't (and shouldn't) do the same. Like you said, the same rules apply across the board...
Member since:2005-06-29
Apple should allow other devices to use iTunes in the same way Microsoft must allow others to tap into Windows functionality (like SAMBA).
Again, Apple has a monopoly with iTunes, and as such, it needs to handle things differently than it has done in the past. They can't go around acting all Microsoft and expect no one to notice.
Also, I don't recall Microsoft trying to censor websites carrying interoperability information (which is what this is all about) - I might be wrong though.
Member since:2005-07-06
Member since:2005-06-29
Member since:2005-11-21
The iTMS market share hovers around 90%, same for the iPod. This means Apple has a monopoly, and as such, are subject to the same scrutiny as Microsoft. Luckily.
You clearly don't understand The Sherman Anti-Trust Act.
Member since:2009-04-24
Member since:2008-12-15
And its evident you don't know it as well as you think you do.
The Full Test is here: http://www.gamingip.com/Statutes/RawText/SR-15USC.html
Here be dah impotent pahrts:
http://www.stolaf.edu/people/becker/antitrust/statutes/sherman.html
Have fun reading. (All y'all, eh!)
Member since:2005-08-18
Yes, that's exactly what it means. There's economic competition and there are viable substitutes for Microsoft's products.
90% is not a monopoly, it's an unhealthy market dominance.
Edited 2009-07-23 11:53 UTC
Member since:2007-03-26
90% is not a monopoly, it's an unhealthy market dominance.
In law, 90% IS is classed as a monopoly.
You can argue to you're blue in the fact that the English dictionary definition of monopoly is different; however this is a legal discussion thus the legal definition is the definition which matters.
Member since:2005-07-06
The iTMS market share hovers around 90%, same for the iPod. This means Apple has a monopoly, and as such, are subject to the same scrutiny as Microsoft. Luckily.
I don't think 90% market share means monopoly. Besides, that's just the online music store. What's their market share of all music sales... or better yet... all music obtained by any means?
Member since:2005-07-06
The iTMS market share hovers around 90%, same for the iPod. This means Apple has a monopoly, and as such, are subject to the same scrutiny as Microsoft. Luckily.
Good, so hopefully you'll agree that Photoshop has a monopoly in Photo manipulation market and deliberately cripples their Mac OS X version in favour of propping up Microsoft's Windows monopoly.
See, I do can make wild and useless statements - yeah me!
Member since:2006-05-04
Member since:2006-05-10
Thom's remark on Apple being new to having a monopoly and having to be "nice" is very perceptive.
Just like Apple must get to terms with it, I think the consumer market also has to get used to the concept of Apple being a monopolist. That we're not quite used to it ourselves, seems to be a driving factor behind many recent comment postings in response to other OS News articles I've read.
Member since:2006-10-10
Member since:2005-07-06
iTune was created in 1999 as soundjam MP withch Apple bought and forked as a digital media player catalog for mac OS 9 ...
Version 1 came out in 2001 prior to iPod releases , that's why version 2 added support for iPods , prior to iPods own release.
Apple release this media player catalog both for windows and Mac OS X.
iTunes Store was a music store and then added media stores later.
Apple and iTune did not create anything at all and they don't dominate the market , they control some content by unique exclusive deals.
Edited 2009-07-23 08:36 UTC
Member since:2006-01-04
All software and hardware should be able to talk to each other. Based on common standards. You know, like the internet works. These stupid vendor lock-ins have to die a fast painful death. They only serve coporate interest and not the users. I really hope Google, the EU or FOSS or something will make that happen. (No more hope in the US, MS or Apple to do it.)
Member since:2008-12-16
Member since:2007-09-06
The case seems to be about information on how one can sync there purchases hardware with iTunes purchases music. It doesn't dictate that Apple has to provide support for non-Apple hardware against iTunes, only that they can't send cease and desist letters to a website which provides information on how it may be done. It also does not restrict Apple from some new "feature" in iTunes that breaks the already known methods.
If Nokia was going to court over my ability to sync my my mobile phone using other software or sync other mobile phones using Nokia's software then it may be similar. Since Nokia is not sending letters and going to court over the information on how it may be done being publicly available, it's not the same. Nore are printers being managed with non-vendor software.
Member since:
2009-03-19
This isn't as big of victory as you are making it out to be. According to the article on Ars, the only reason Apple dropped the case was because they changed their code, thus making the information on that website useless. They saw no reason to keep up a lawsuit over useless information. Here is the relevant quote from Apple's press release.
"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, ..... Given this change of circumstances, Apple no longer has, nor it will have in the future, any objection to the publication of the iTunes DB Pages"
Member since:2005-07-06
Ah yes, the legal strategy known as "We're taking our ball and going home."
Member since:2007-09-06
Wahoo.. another update for my wife's machine which only serves to restrict the user's control over a purchased product. I was afraid it'd be an update addressing bugs or stability issues. 
(couldn't resist. I don't like intentional incompatibility by design but at least it's better than a legal snuff job. Still, no better than MS changing code only to break compatibility between versions.)
Member since:2007-03-26
"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, ..... Given this change of circumstances, Apple no longer has, nor it will have in the future, any objection to the publication of the iTunes DB Pages"
That reads more like Apple trying to "save face" given the potentially embarrassing and highly public defeat/withdrawal.
After all, Apples image is a much a part of their products as the hardware and software.
Member since:
2007-08-12
Member since:
2006-09-18
I wonder, since it's DMCA stuff if the site showed how to bypass DRM? I can see no other possible way for Apple to sue. If I reverse engineer a cleanroom way to interface to some product, I thought there is no way you can stop me.
Also I wonder on the legality of DRM v.s. fair use, but that's another argument possibly.
Member since:2006-10-06
I'm not superfamiliar with this case either, but it is plainly known that Apple lets others write plugins and use the XML Music library data to sync music to other players. There are a plethora of other apps out there that you can use to manage/change/alter your iTunes database using this info. And they are very legal.
So I am assuming it was the DRM stuff that got this site in trouble, but now, since Apple has phased out DRM for music, there isn't anything to fuss about any longer.
Glad that DRM is gone on the iTunes store (for music at least), even if it was one of the better versions of DRM out there.
Member since:
2006-05-10
