Katie MarsalA site host for a wiki covering iTunes database exploration has opted to fight back against repeated legal threats from Apple by suing the iPod maker in court on grounds of censorship.
OdioWorks, which runs the free and open wiki service BluWiki, wants to bar Apple from repeatedly threatening its own legal action simply for letting BluWiki users host a wiki for iTunesDB, a project to learn about iTunes' database file system and create third-party software that can replicate the sync functionality of iTunes for iPhones and iPods without forcing users to run Apple's own media software. Over the course of several months, Apple has claimed the very existence of iTunesDB violates the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)'s rules on circumventing copyright locks and, in November, successfully frightened OdioWorks into taking down the wiki entries.
Now, the plaintiff argues in its 11-page complaint that it had only agreed to the initial request to avoid the lawsuit and that it believes BluWiki posters' free speech rights are being violated by requests likened to outright censorship by both OdioWorks and the EFF.
"Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussions," OdioWorks founder Sam Odio says.
The EFF specifically maintains that it's fully legal to perform reverse engineering for the purposes of fair competition, such as allowing an iPhone to sync outside of iTunes. It also claims that OdioWorks' decision to run BluWiki as a non-profit and entirely user-driven content service should exempt the company proper from facing legal threats. No one writing the iTunesDB wiki had even confirmed that they had cracked the code, the lawsuit notes.
The organization and OdioWorks further charge that Apple has been outright dishonest from a technical standpoint. Where Apple insists that reverse engineering a certain slice of memory copying code equated to an attempt to break the FairPlay anti-piracy protection that, until April of this year, guarded a significant number of songs on the iTunes Store. That software only related to generating a hash value that Apple deliberately instituted in September 2007 as a protection measure that would prevent accessing iTunesDB, according to the lawsuit. It implies that Apple's release of iPhone 2.0 firmware in July 2008 again revised the hash creation technique with an eye to breaking third-party support a second time.
If successful, the lawsuit would bar Apple from making any DMCA or other copyright claims against OdioWorks as well as legal fees and "any other relief" the California court believes is due.
While Apple in its typical fashion hasn't commented on the lawsuit, the iPhone era at the company has been characterized by a heightened level of secrecy around access to the software that girds the touchscreen device, the iPod touch and their relationship to iTunes. The Cupertino electronics designer has had a more relaxed attitude towards the file structure on click wheel iPods and has done comparatively little to restrict owners of iPod classics, nanos and shuffles from loading music through software like Songbird, which is one of the few jukebox programs to recognize iPods in Linux.
-m.jpg)
Charles Martin
Malcolm Owen
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
Wesley Hilliard
26 Comments
deleted
The EFF wants Apple to quit warning people Apple thinks are violating their
copyrights? Would they prefer Apple skip the warnings and proceed directly
to the lawsuits?
The EFF wants Apple to quit warning people Apple thinks are violating their
copyrights? Would they prefer Apple skip the warnings and proceed directly
to the lawsuits?
Maybe you should say allegedly violating their copyrights.
Maybe you should say allegedly violating their copyrights.
Uh, "that Apple thinks is violating their copyright" doesn't require the "allegedly" waffle word. "Allegedly" wouldn't even make sense in this context. (E.g., "I think you allegedly stole my car," makes no sense.)
The right to free speech only applies to limiting speech from government control. It has never been successfully applied as a general all-purpose freedom to do anything. And using the term allegedly is merely a journalists duty in a criminal case where guilty until proven innocent is the somewhat deferred to. The term is relatively meaningless when civil player A accuses civil player B of something, that can be reported straight up with no prejudice to either plaintiff.
The EFF will have a difficult time proving the threats are bogus because they are not bogus. Apple sent the C&D letter, and may sue if the C&D letter is not honored. Therefore the threat is quite real.
If Apple can reasonably show the wiki site violates the EULA and/or developer guidelines and that the information is covered by any number of IP laws then their C&D letter has a very good chance of holding up in court, further avoiding the bogus label.
The site can post whatever they want for now, as long as they are willing to pay dearly if they lose a lawsuit. And the host got wrapped in because they have the deeper pockets and own the system the alleged infringement is happening on. There ain't no running away from this one and if any of the filesharing cases are successfully used as precedent Apple wins walking away.
A judge will not make a pre-emptory ruling telling a site they cannot post something because the judge is part of the government, that would be a violation the First Amendment by prior censorship. But I'm sure the site's and host's lawyers have had the above conversation that's why they pulled the site already.
EFF always feels the need to drive the lawsuits anyway because if they win they push back the precedent boundary, and if they lose, they lose absolutely nothing. I have no problems with that, it helps to keep the overall system a little more balanced, but I really don't think they are going to make any progress with this one.