Get Better Gear!

Premier Sponsors

TechRestore

Other World Computing

Top 5 Free Apps

Sheep Launcher Free!
Kronos Games
Release Date: August 05, 2009
Genre: Games
Boxed In
Dennis Mengelt
Release Date: May 22, 2009
Genre: Games
Ninjas Live
Storm8
Release Date: August 29, 2009
Genre: Games
Bump
Bump Technologies LLC
Release Date: March 27, 2009
Genre: Social Networking
Discovery Channel
Discovery Channel
Release Date: August 07, 2009
Genre: Entertainment

iTunes New Music Releases

Black Gives Way To Blue
Alice In Chains
Release Date: September 29, 2009
Genre: Rock
Backspacer
Pearl Jam
Release Date: September 20, 2009
Genre: Alternative
The Resistance
Muse
Release Date: September 15, 2009
Genre: Alternative
Awake (Deluxe Version)
Skillet
Release Date: August 25, 2009
Genre: Rock
Ellipse (Deluxe Version)
Imogen Heap
Release Date: August 25, 2009
Genre: Alternative

Top 5 Paid Apps

The Moron Test $0.99
DistinctDev
Release Date: April 22, 2009
Genre: Entertainment
StickWars $0.99
John E. Hartzog
Release Date: March 31, 2009
Genre: Games
Bloons $0.99
Digital Goldfish Ltd
Release Date: April 05, 2009
Genre: Games

Discover New Music

  • Chicago Transit Authority

    • 10 out of 10
    • Chicago

    • For those of you who don't know, Chicago didn't always suck, and everyone in the band didn't always play a keyboard. When the band started off they were pioneers of rock and jazz fusion, and guita

  • Whatever People Say I Am, That's What I'm Not

    • 8 out of 10
    • Arctic Monkeys

    • Get on your dancing shoes
      You sexy little swine
      -Arctic

  • Machine Gun Etiquette

    • 8 out of 10
    • The Damned
    • Punk rock is mostly associated with three chords and a bad attitude, but the Damned were one of the few bands of the era bent on bringing musicianship and a good sense of humor to the scene. And while

  • Clap Your Hands Say Yeah

    • 8 out of 10
    • Clap Your Hands Say Yeah

    • When I first got hooked to Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, the only place I could get their debut album, Clap Your Hands Say Yeah, was through the band's Web site. I listened to the two tracks a

  • Another Day on Earth

    • 10 out of 10
    • Brian Eno
    • In his first proper solo release since 1996's relatively cold "The Drop," Brian Eno has constructed a whimsical and ecclectic masterpiece which is arguably one of the year's strongest records thus fa

Reader Specials

Visit Deals On The Web for the best deals on all consumer electronics, iPods, and more!

News

Web Site Sues Apple Over Take Down Notice

Tuesday, April 28th, 2009 at 9:31 AM - by Jeff Gamet

OdioWorks was hit with a notice from Apple demanding it remove iPod and iPhone-related information from its Web site over copyright and Digital Millenium Copyright issues, and now the company is fighting back by suing Apple. OdioWorks -- with some help from the Electronic Frontier Foundation -- is claiming that the content on its site didn't infringe on Apple's copyrights, nor did it violate the DMCA.

Information on a OdioWorks-hosted forum called BluWiki apparently described how to use an iPhone or iPod with music and movie management applications other than iTunes. The company replaced the forum entry, which was titled "Ipodhash," with a notice that they had been asked to remove it after receiving the request from Apple's legal team on December 17, 2008.

OdioWorks and the EFF filed the lawsuit in U.S. District Court on April 27 with an assertion that the forum entries did not violate Apple's copyrights or the DMCA. The suit is asking for attorney fees and costs along with "any relief the Court deems just and proper."

 

7 comments from the community.

You can post your own below.

Tiger said:

April 28th, 2009 at 10:32 AM

Wait, I’m confused. They received a request to remove the information. They removed it. And then they’re suing for complying with a request? Suing for what damages, or being stupid?

If they don’t agree with the request, put the info back up and then let Apple sue you.

Bunch of bottom feeders.

   Quote

Sir Harry Flashman said:

April 28th, 2009 at 11:39 AM

“Wait, I?m confused. They received a request to remove the information. They removed it. And then they?re suing for complying with a request? Suing for what damages, or being stupid?”

Good point.

   Quote

Bosco said:

April 28th, 2009 at 12:25 PM

@Tiger… The way the DMCA works is that the web site avoids liability by complying with a correct take-down notice. OdioWorks did this, so they have no liability for what was posted. Now OdioWorks, with EFF, is suing Apple to get a judgement that the content was non-infringing under DMCA. Procedurally, that is the correct way for OdioWorks to handle it, as it lets them avoid liability, but still gives them a hearing of their grievance in court.

More often than not, the EFF takes on stupid cases that make them look like info-commie freetard pansies. This one is more nuanced. It’s not an attack on the DMCA. It’s an attack on its boundaries. Apple has had to do a lot of complicated things to keep its monopoly as arbiter of good taste for the iPhone and iPod Touch. On the iPhone side, there’s a business case to be made because of the relative scarcity of radio bandwidth, and there’s consumer expectation that carriers control the mobile experience. The iPod Touch, though, goes against consumer expectations and market precedent in having one entity control what can go on the devices. I don’t want the courts, legislators, or regulators to step in and tell them they can’t do that. I would like the model to ultimately fail. I don’t mind if the courts examine the labyrinth of contracts and legal reasoning that prop up this exclusivity. In this case, the court would be examining how much power the DMCA gives Apple toward this end.

   Quote

Tiger said:

April 28th, 2009 at 12:56 PM

Nuanced? Sounds like a chicken $__t grab for cash and nothing moree. Suing a company over the regulations of a federal law after self-complying is totally spineless and completely up the alley of the EFF. They “avoid” liability so that they’re not sued by complying and suing? Oh, that wreaks of duplicity and is a model for hypocrisy.

Knowing full well in advance of Apple’s terms, business model, etc., (it’s not like any of these things were hidden), OdioWorks knowingly posted content that they knew would fly in the face of the DMCA and yet now act like the injured party. I hope a judge biatch slaps them down with prejudice for being stupid.

Welcome to change. It is a different world. There is a LOT of competition. Instead of making their own product or service, and God forbid have to actually be creative, they rip off somebody else’s property and ideas, and worse, publicly enable others to do so as well. The iPod touch is anything but unique. It was totally a late-comer to the market. And yes, it’s done well. But it is by no means the end all and be all of the music player market. Except that it has Apple’s name on it.

Apparently, there are people who believe that if it says Apple on it, they’re entitled to steal it.

Let’s hope they get Pontiac’d.

   Quote

Bosco said:

April 28th, 2009 at 8:42 PM

Hey Tiger. How about arguing about things you know the facts about. From the linked article:

OdioWorks filed the lawsuit in order to vindicate its right to restore those discussions. Filed in federal court in San Francisco, the suit seeks 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.

They aren’t asking for monetary damages, just a judgement. Apple is making a giant leap using the DMCA for this. The DMCA is about legally stopping technological workarounds for violating copyright, not preventing technological workarounds for loading unapproved software onto a device that you own.

   Quote

azarkon said:

April 28th, 2009 at 8:48 PM

This doesn’t actually sound like a ploy to suck money from apple.  If it were, the complaint would ask for more than attorney’s fees and “any relief the court deems proper”  Rather it seems more interested in asserting freedom of information.  It seems like this will be a simple fact-finding legal case.  If Apple was harassing website owners with legal threats that are outside the scope of the law, than they should absolutely pay the legal fees.

   Quote

Page 1 of 1 pages

Post Your Comments

  Remember Me  Forgot your password?

Not a member? Register now. You can post comments without logging in, but they'll show up as a "guest" post.

Commenting is not available in this section entry.