Does Apple Own The Copyright On A File You Create Via iTunes?
from the discussion-should-be-legal dept
Last last year, the EFF publicly blasted Apple for threatening a wiki site, called BluWiki, that had been set up by a firm OdioWorks to reverse engineer interoperability with iPods and iPhones so that those devices could work with other software apps (such as Songbird), rather than being locked into iTunes. Apple had threatened the wiki site with a DMCA violation claim, and the EFF pointed out numerous problems with the DMCA claim. Now things have been kicked up a notch, as the site, along with help from the EFF have sued Apple to have the site declared legal. The EFF argument points out that an open discussion site alone is hardly violating the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, but perhaps the more interesting argument is the fact that the iTunes DB file, which is at the heart of this matter, is created by each user independently and is not encrypted. There are two interesting arguments here. First, since the file is not encrypted, there is no encryption to circumvent, thus no violation of the anti-circumvention clauses. Second, since the file is created by the user and his or her own interaction with the software, Apple has no claim on the copyright of the file. If there's any copyright at all, the argument goes, it belongs to the user, and thus they should have every right to do whatever they want with it. This should be a lawsuit worth watching.Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, dmca, itunes, reverse engineering
Companies: apple, eff, odioworks
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
They'll claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They'll claim...
This win will be like the RIAA's win against the pirate bay. Something we can point to while the opposing side uses it to illustrate how they need more IP protection.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They'll claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They'll claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: They'll claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: They'll claim...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Done
Case dismissed right there. Should never even make it to litigation, Apple is pushing stupidity now. If this were to stand, it would completely undo all creative works ever made on any computer, since they ALL use a "file format" of some kind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why not?
Just my O.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why not?
A link would be best.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(c) 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.
Very clear and to the point .. no one reads the license agreement
there is also this which makes me laugh!
iPOD SOFTWARE AND iPOD SOFTWARE UPDATES ARE NOT INTENDED FOR USE IN THE OPERATION OF NUCLEAR FACILITIES, AIRCRAFT NAVIGATION OR
COMMUNICATION SYSTEMS, AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEMS, LIFE SUPPORT MACHINES OR OTHER EQUIPMENT IN WHICH THE FAILURE OF THE iPOD SOFTWARE
OR iPOD SOFTWARE UPDATES COULD LEAD TO DEATH
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The times they are a changin'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I wrote a disclaimer saying that by reading this comment I have rights to your first born child, it wouldn't be enforcable in court.
Likewise, if, while watching the red sox sweep the yankees, you hear a voiceover say that you can't talk about the game without their permission, that too is unenforcable.
They're trying to trick you into doing what they want using fear of court fees based on the assumption that you don't know the law.
If that's not illegal, then it *should* be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Notice the word "agreement"
a disclaimer is a statement denying responsibility intended to prevent civil liability arising for particular acts or omissions.
License Agreement is the legal agreement between the manufacturer and purchaser of software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And rightfully so! They'll just leave that to Windows!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(c) 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.
That may be clear and to the point. BUT you have to agree to it and according to that document you agree to it by using the software. If you never use i tune software and instead use a third party software or for that matter create your own then there is no legal agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
yes exactly .. you agree to the software by using it! notice that this is the ipod software license agreement NOT the itunes software license agreement .. they are two separate programs
so yes you do agree to the ipod software by using the ipod, not by using itunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
(c) 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.
You see teh part that says "or by applicable law"? Yeah, that's the part that allows reverse engineering and fair use.
You can't take away certain rights via any sort of license agreement, let alone a clickwrap one that the person does not actually have a chance to agree to or negotiate.
Otherwise, there would be no copyright at all. Instead, you'd have companies setting forth licenses that give them full control, deny fair use, and leave ownership with the creator in perpetuity. Yet, the courts and the legislators have made it clear that you can't license away certain rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: iPod license
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Good reminder to why we need to support the EFF
I've never seen a company so unwilling to let people 'play' with their devices. As someone that grew up in what I consider the golden age of IT, hacking things and figuring them out was king. For some people, tearing apart their cars was what drove them, for me it was electronic gadgets. In today's world, if I tear about an iPod, I go to jail - yeah Apple!
Freedom
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Good reminder to why we need to support the EFF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
criminal by lottery
now he asking more money today. then i check on net me realised they are fraud they saying me send money this adress.i have that. today me tell them after 1-2 days.he is now also connecting please help me i will give you every information about him. do it early
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: criminal by lottery
I'd like to think my alias took a bit more time to conceive than, say, DJ (my initials too, by the way, so it really would have been easy for me to use that as an alias.)
By the by, could you explain that last bit for me? I'm not sure I'm grasping the crux of your argument there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: criminal by lottery
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
FYI, I went with the Blackberry Storm.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I hope you die accidentally eating coal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
So I make a post that is only semi-related to the subject and you hope I die accidentally eating coal? And I am the bad guy here? BTW, why coal?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not an agreement
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not an agreement
end of the first paragraph
IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS LICENSE, DO NOT USE THE IPOD OR DOWNLOAD THIS SOFTWARE UPDATE. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THE LICENSE AND HAVE NOT USED, THE IPOD YOU MAY RETURN THE IPOD TO THE PLACE WHERE YOU OBTAINED IT FOR A REFUND.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I copy wrote it first before I submitted to Apple. It they try to use in an unauthorized way I will sue them for Copy right infringement!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
N. Copyright
V. Copyright
Therefore the past-tense would by Copyrighted.
Just FYI
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
itunes xml
The EFF skews the facts. Per their usual tactics, the EFF is essentially being a 5 year old kid who points a grubby finger and accuses another kid of saying something much dirtier or more embarrassing than he actually did.
anyway...
The itunes library is also available as an .xml file, which contains playlists, ratings, everything except the 'live" content such as smart playlist and Genius definitions (which are exported as static playlists in the XML)
XML is just text, and an open standard. Lots of non-apple software reads the iTunes XML (mt-daapd,etc..) to share playlists
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"decompile" -> can't decompile what's not compiled
"reverse engineer" -> can't reverse engineer what is in plan site
"disassemble" -> can't disassemble if you are just reading it
"attempt to derive the source code of" -> source code, there is no source code
"decrypt" -> not encrypted
"modify" -> not being modified
"or create derivative works of the iPod Software, iPod Software Updates, or any part thereof" -> the golden bullet, but to broad in legal realms because of all the points above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Has to be done
http://xkcd.com/501/
Seriously, I had my eyes opened about a year ago to the ridiculousness that is iTunes, trying to move some music around between my devices. I still dig my iPod, but just ponied up $20 for MGTEK's Dopisp. Now the iPod plays so nicely with Windows Media Player. My next PMP will probably be a Sandisk or Cowon, and the fruit can rot.
Way to alienate more customers, Apple. Bravo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
now you have done it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why is it called a Licensing Agreement if I don't get a chance to agree?
LICENSING DEMANDS
END USER LICENSING DEMANDS
At least then they can be honest about what it is and change all the 'by accepting this you...' to 'We demand that you ....'.
As far as I'm concerned if I purchase something before I get a chance to accept their licensing 'agreement' then it's not an agreement, it's a set of demands, and I have no obligation to abide by their demands. Just like they have no obligation to agree to my demands that they should provide continual media updates for all the movies/music/software that I 'license'.
I have movies on beta and laserdisk that are no longer playable/usable due to technology changes, I demand that they provide me with updated copies on DVD/Blueray for the cost of production. Since I own a license to view the movie, they should have no problem with this, right?
If you think EULA's are enforceable, try sending in a $50.00 payment on a $5000 loan and put 'EULA: By accepting this check you are agreeing that this loan is Paid in Full' on the check, then when they cash it (which they will, who reads notes on checks? probably the same people who read EULA's) take them to court and try to enforce it.... So why does it work when they do it? Oh yeah, they bought the government and we are just the Sheeple(tm) who have no rights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]