Apple Backs Down On Bluwiki Threats | Electronic Frontier Foundation

Apple Backs Down On Bluwiki Threats | Electronic Frontier Foundation
About
Contact
Press
People
Opportunities
EFF's 35th Anniversary
Issues
Free Speech
Creativity and Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Our Work
Deeplinks Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
Podcast
Annual Reports
Take Action
Action Center
Electronic Frontier Alliance
Volunteer
Tools
Privacy Badger
Surveillance Self-Defense
Certbot
Atlas of Surveillance
Cover Your Tracks
Street Level Surveillance
apkeep
Donate
Donate to EFF
Giving Societies
Shop
Sponsorships
Other Ways to Give
Membership FAQ
Donate
Donate to EFF
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Email updates on news, actions,
and events in your area.
Join EFF Lists
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Thanks
Electronic Frontier Foundation
Donate
If you use technology, this fight is yours.
Donate today
Apple Backs Down On Bluwiki Threats
DEEPLINKS BLOG
By Fred von Lohmann
July 22, 2009
Apple Backs Down On Bluwiki Threats
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
Apple has retracted its legal threats against public wiki hosting site Bluwiki, and, in response, EFF is dismissing its
lawsuit against Apple
over those threats.
The skirmish involved a set of anonymously authored wiki pages in which hobbyists were discussing how to enable recent-vintage iPods and iPhones to "sync" media with software other than Apple's own iTunes (e.g.,
Songbird
or
Winamp
). We're not talking about any "piracy" here; we're talking about syncing the media you legitimately own on the iPod or iPhone you own, using software of your choice.
In November 2008, Apple sent a
series of legal threats
to the operator of Bluwiki, alleging that these hobbyist
discussions
about interoperability violated the
DMCA's anti-circumvention
provisions, even though the author(s) of the pages hadn't yet figured out how to accomplish their goal. So, according to Apple, even
talking about
reverse engineering for interoperability violates the DMCA! In a later letter, Apple also alleged that short excerpts of decompiled code on the pages infringed its copyrights, despite the fact that the code fragments related to a trivial function and comprised a tiny fraction of the iTunes software overall.
In response to Apple's legal threats, Bluwiki took down the wiki pages in question and sought legal assistance. In April 2009, EFF and the San Francisco law firm of Keker & Van Nest
sued Apple
on behalf of OdioWorks, which runs Bluwiki, asking a court to reject Apple's claims and allow Bluwiki to restore the discussions.
On July 8, 2009, Apple sent
letter
withdrawing its cease & desist demands and stating that "Apple no longer has, nor will it have in the future, any objection to the publication of the iTunesDB Pages."
While we are glad that Apple retracted its baseless legal threats, we are disappointed that it only came after 7 months of censorship and a lawsuit. Moreover, Apple continues to use technical measures
to lock iPod Touch and iPhone owners
into using Apple's iTunes software. And just last week, Apple used an update to iTunes as an excuse
to lock the new Palm Pre smart phone out
of using Apple's iTunes software. In light of these developments, you can be sure that perfectly legal efforts to reverse engineer Apple products will continue in order to foster interoperability. We hope Apple has learned its lesson here, and will give those online discussions a wide berth in the future.
Related Issues
DMCA
Fair Use
DRM
Creativity & Innovation
Big Tech
Related Cases
OdioWorks v Apple
Share It
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Copy link
Related Updates
People building the future of the social web—interoperable and decentralized—need to protect themselves against copyright liability. This post gives an overview of the steps to take. It’s meant for operators of Mastodon and other ActivityPub servers, Bluesky hosts, RSS mirrors, and other decentralized social media protocols, and developers of apps...
In this case before the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, appellant Emmerich Newspapers is calling for the court to subject some of the internet’s most fundamental and useful functions—linking and embedding—to staggering new potential liability. For nearly two decades, a pragmatic interpretation of the Copyright Act’s public display right, known...
At EFF, we
believe
that
tech rights are worker’s rights
. Since the pandemic, workers of all kinds have been subjected to increasingly invasive forms of
bossware
. These are the “algorithmic management” tools that surveil workers on and off the job, often running on devices that (nominally) belong...
Amid a wave of lawsuits targeting how AI companies use copyrighted works to train large language models that generate new works, a peculiar provision of copyright law is suddenly in the spotlight: Section 1202 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Section 1202 restricts intentionally removing or changing copyright management...
Apple
has released a scaremongering, self-serving warning aimed at the Australian government
, claiming that Australians will be overrun by a parade of digital horribles if Australia follows the European Union’s lead and regulates Apple’s “walled garden.” The
EU’s Digital Markets Act
is a big, complex, ambitious law that...
Copyright is no longer—if it ever was—a niche concern of certain industries. As corporations have pushed to expand copyright, they have made it everyone’s problem. And that means they don’t get to make the law in secret anymore.
In a major win for creator communities, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit has once again handed video streaming site Vimeo
a solid win
in its
long-running legal battle
with Capitol Records and a host of other record labels.The labels claimed that Vimeo was liable...
No one gets to abuse copyright to shut down debate. Because of that, we at EFF represent Channel 781, a group of citizen journalists whose YouTube channel was temporarily shut down following copyright infringement claims made by Waltham Community Access Corporation (WCAC). As part of that case, the federal court...
Performers and ordinary humans are increasingly concerned that they may be replaced or defamed by AI-generated imitations. We’re seeing a host of bills designed to address that concern – but every one just generates new problems. Case in point: the NO FAKES Act. We flagged numerous flaws in a “discussion...
Section 1201 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act is a ban on reading any copyrighted work that is encumbered by access restrictions. It makes it illegal for you to read and understand the code that determines how your phone or car works and whether those devices are safe. It makes...
Share on Mastodon
Share on Bluesky
Share on Facebook
Related Issues
DMCA
Fair Use
DRM
Creativity & Innovation
Big Tech
Related cases
OdioWorks v Apple
Follow EFF:
mastodon
Blue Sky
flicker
threads
Check out our 4-star rating on
Charity Navigator
Contact
General
Legal
Security
Membership
Press
About
Calendar
Volunteer
Victories
History
Internships
Jobs
Staff
Diversity & Inclusion
Issues
Free Speech
Creativity & Innovation
Transparency
International
Security
Updates
Blog
Press Releases
Events
Legal Cases
Whitepapers
EFFector Newsletter
Press
Press Contact
Donate
Join or Renew Membership Online
One-Time Donation Online
Giving Societies
Corporate Giving and Sponsorship
Shop
Other Ways to Give
Copyright (CC BY)
Trademark
Thanks
JavaScript license information