EFF Sues Apple Over BluWiki Legal Threats 242
Hugh Pickens writes "The Electronic Frontier Foundation has filed suit against Apple to defend the First Amendment rights of BluWiki, a noncommercial, public Internet 'wiki' site operated by OdioWorks. Last year, BluWiki users began a discussion about making some Apple iPods and iPhones interoperate with software other than Apple's iTunes. Apple lawyers demanded removal of the content (pdf) sending a letter to OdioWorks, alleging that the discussions constituted copyright infringement and a violation of the DMCA's prohibition on circumventing copy protection measures. Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site but has now filed a lawsuit to vindicate its right to restore those discussions (pdf) and seeking 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. 'I take the free speech rights of BluWiki users seriously,' said Sam Odio, owner of OdioWorks. 'Companies like Apple should not be able to censor online discussions by making baseless legal threats against services like BluWiki that host the discussions.'"
Random BedHead Ed adds ZDNet quotes EFF's Fred von Lohmann, who says that this is an issue of censorship. 'Wikis and other community sites are home to many vibrant discussions among hobbyists and tinkerers. It's legal to engage in reverse engineering in order to create a competing product, it's legal to talk about reverse engineering, and it's legal for a public wiki to host those discussions.'"
First Amendment (Score:5, Interesting)
Fearing legal action by Apple, OdioWorks took down the discussions from the BluWiki site
This is what you get when lawyers are too expensive. Censorship.
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Insightful)
That's what you get when you create laws that make information illegal. Censorship is nothing but just that: Outlawing certain information, or the spreading thereof.
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
Censorship is nothing but just that: Outlawing certain information, or the spreading thereof.
The Thought Police has noted your contribution. Thank you for your input, citizen.
P.S. You have three minutes. I suggest you start running.
Re:First Amendment (Score:4, Funny)
Dear Thought Police. You have made public the response time of our units.
P.S.: your office doors are now locked, no need to run. We'll be there shortly.
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
P.S.: your office doors are now locked, no need to run. We'll be there shortly.
Tell them to be careful, I ate beans yesterday.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I ate beans yesterday.
We know.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:First Amendment (Score:4, Funny)
I will not run. Kill me if you have to, dying as a free man is better than living the life of a slave.
Thank you, Spartacus (Score:4, Interesting)
The Thought Police aren't coming to kill you, they are coming to enslave you. Feel like running now? No? Did I mention they are IMAGINARY? Now what are you going to do? How do you fight that which is only in your mind?
Your seriousness has killed the funny. You could have at least put it in terms of a pithy quote about liberty, lions and jackals, or free beer.
Re:Thank you, Spartacus (Score:4, Interesting)
Did I mention they are IMAGINARY?
It may be irrational to believe they are real, but he expresses what he feels is a transcendental truth.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Our studies have shown that the use of large words and complex sentences upset the citizens, please refrain from further violations. Furthermore we advise you to lay down on the floor, assume the party position and await the arrival of the happiness officers.
Re:First Amendment (Score:5, Funny)
Clever. Now all they have to do is look for the guy that just started running.
Re:First Amendment Apple better KNOCK this (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*sigh* Apple and Microsft aren't equal. In fact, they aren't equally detrimental to the world of computer science. And, it goes beyond scale.
Apple sells physical products, which happen to be preloaded with their own operating systems and software. Apple won't permit anyone to do much of anything with those systems, which apple doesn't approve of. Apple, bad, yeah.
Microsoft sells almost no physical products, instead relying on an established monopoly, created by intimidating manufacturers of computer ha
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
If they were just for profit, they wouldn't have made their MacBooks' displays "eco-friendly" at the cost of rendering them useless to serious creative professionals. In other words they are now in the process of letting their politics influence the quality of their product, which WILL impact sales and marketshare.
I'm not buying ANY Apple product with that hideous glossy screen.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
sooo much more open?
If you're going to boycott every company that pulls this kind of crap, get ready to grow your own food and cultivate your own penicillin too. Monsanto and the drug companies make Apple look like total hippies.
After high school, you'll find out that they ALL play dirty. It won't change unless we reform our "IP" laws.
w00t for the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
They keep doing very useful (and thankless) work.
Re:w00t for the EFF (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:w00t for the EFF (Score:4, Funny)
So thank them. [eff.org]
But then it wouldn't be thankless. Are you trying to put the poor sap into a race condition???
Re:w00t for the EFF (Score:4, Insightful)
Thankless? Everyone here (and there are a few hundred thousand) bend over backwards to extoll the virtues of the EFF (and overlook its flaws). They are especially well-funded for a single-issue legal advocacy group, and their members are quoted in the press constantly.
How is that "thankless"? I do not think that word means what you think it does.
No, but if you use anything else.... (Score:3)
If you use iTunes, you don't care. I don't.
If you use (or would like to use) something else (gtkpod) to manage your iPod, then you might want to thank EFF.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
iTunes is great but they should not have monopoly. I think one can almost argue that they have a monopoly. Especially when an artist with not much money wants to promote their own work. They'll be more successfull advertising that their works are available on "iTunes" than anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple has a monopoly on music players with the ipod/iphone/ipod touch just as microsoft has a monopoly on operating systems. There are other music players out there, but what does the average joe now think of when you say MP3 player? An ipod. There are a hell of a lot of other music players out there, but ipod is the most popular in people's minds. The same can be said for operating systems. There are other operating systems besides windows. What is the most popular in the average joe's mind? windows.
I'll b
For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:2, Interesting)
A thought, if Apple is claiming copyright juristiction on the conversation, would that not mean that Apple was claiming that it had written said conversations, in whole or part, and by which, by extention, are encouraging people to do the activities therein? Could make some interesting arguements in the courtroom. IANAL but from my viewpoint, Apple does not have much of a legal leg to stand on here.
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:4, Insightful)
That's what they mean by a copyright claim.
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's a shame that someone can sue someone else and ruin that person just on legal fee's. I am pretty sure the gov't does not provide free council to people in civil suits. It's a major flaw in our countries legal system.
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:5, Insightful)
And you've just outlined the entire MPAA/RIAA prosecution strategy to boot...
Re:For Apple to claim copyright... (Score:5, Interesting)
My understanding is that they aren't claiming "copyright infringement", but rather DMCA anti-circumvention clause violations.
The anti-circumvention clause is the biggest problem with the DMCA. Issues of copyright term, severity of damages, etc. are all significant, but at least they make some kind of sense on the conceptual map of copyright law. Anti-circumvention says: you can't have, make, try to make, describe how to make, etc. anything for the purpose of breaking a copyright protection.
What's a copyright protection? Well, that's open to interpretation. How do we decide if something's purpose is to break a copyright protection? Also open to interpretation.
Apple seems to be saying that if you reverse-engineer their system to interoperate with other software, you can use that to violate someone's copyright - and that defeating some copyright protection in their system is the primary purpose for which you'd do it.
This is how we negotiate (Score:2)
On some level, this (and other things that have been made by the courts and through law, like the Doctrine of First Sale) is how society as a whole negotiates with vendors - when they offer things that are enough against the interests of society, we effectively band together and tell them that their terms are unacceptable and they'll either modify them or they won't be sold here.
Re:This is how we negotiate (Score:4, Funny)
Grammar advice is best dispensed from a house with sturdy brick walls.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a good thing. She'd probably kick your butt. Now fighting his grammar....
!streissandeffect (Score:4, Informative)
No Streissand Effect here, folks.
Re:!streissandeffect (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a story regarding the countersuit to an Apple DMCA takedown notice. The EFF want publicity for this case.
The streisand effect would relate to apple's attempt to supress a few people talking about this on some forum and to shut the forum down, and now a lot more people are aware of the topic, the forum, and are talking about it.
Re:!streissandeffect (Score:5, Interesting)
I think you're analyzing the Streisand effect from the opposite direction of those tagging the story that way.
Apple didn't want a few hobbyists on OdioWorks talking about making the iPod work with software other than iTunes. Now, because they tried to stifle that publicity, there are these suits. Now Apple will have a bunch of people aware that there's a group wanting to make iPods interoperable with other software.
It's Apple getting more publicity because they didn't want it that earned the story the tag. You're right that the EFF wants to raise awareness of issues like this, though.
Re: (Score:2)
Though, it does make one wonder
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Who on the other platforms WANTS zunes to work on non-Windows platforms? ;)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Who on the other platforms WANTS zunes to work on non-Windows platforms? ;)
me? and several others here at MST
Re: (Score:2)
I want all portable media devices to work on other platforms. I may have no interest in buying an ipod or zune, but that doesn't mean that someone like my cousin, who was given was as a present, should have to suffer.
Re: (Score:2)
I have never used iTunes myself, and not coincidentally, have never purchased any songs from Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
For those who don't know and are too lazy to google it (if there are any out there matching that discription) the Streissand effect could also reasonably be called the "don't look over there!" effect. Imagine someone points and says, "Don't look over there!" What are you going to do? You're going to look where they're pointing.
So the Streissand Effect is when someone tries to censor material from the Internet, and it has the exact opposite effect of publicizing the availability of that information. It'
What's the Story (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to hear both sides of the story. As important as the EFF is, they tend to ignore anything that doesn't fit with their message, especially when it comes to legal proceedings.
Since Apple is Apple, I doubt we will hear much from them. But I would like to point out that there is a strong bias on the part of the EFF to selectively use facts for propaganda.
See: http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/04/14/193217 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, by carefully choosing the facts, one can prove just about anything. It is referred to as "lying by omission" in some quarters and "cherry picking" in others.
It is how many religions work, especially various forms of christianity.
Re: (Score:2)
It is how many religions work, especially various forms of christianity.
Well, now you are just cherry picking religions that practice this.
Re: (Score:2)
No, because I did say many religions. I just singled them out because they are so blatant about it.
Re:What's the Story (Score:5, Insightful)
You accuse the EFF as having a "strong bias... to selectively use facts for propaganda." You provide a link. But that link does not support your accusation at all. Would you like to clarify? Thanks!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
The link you provided, your evidence for your accusation against the EFF, makes no mention that the EFF forgot anything It appears that it is your personal opinion that the EFF forgot something and it further appears that you have have no objective evidence to support your personal opinion.
Re:What's the Story (Score:4, Insightful)
"If you quickly scrolled through the comments..."
You honestly expect me to waste my time searching for evidence to support an accusation made by an anonymous coward? Seriously?
The EFF is an advocacy group pushing an agenda. I have no doubt that the group manipulates facts to further its agenda. This is not based on any actions of the EFF, but is based on advocacy groups in general.
However, before I make a specific accusation about the EFF I'd want my facts straight. Giving a link to posting which does not back up my accusation is not good enough. And expecting people to go through 1079 comments to find my evidence is ludicrous.
Here's how you do it. Take the EFF press release, take the "real facts" behind the story, and show how the EFF twisted the facts. It would not be hard to do.
Of course you'll argue that I could do it. But it's not my accusation. So why would I do it?!
Re: (Score:2)
"If you quickly scrolled through the comments..."
You honestly expect me to waste my time searching for evidence to support an accusation made by an anonymous coward? Seriously?
Since the original "accusation" was not made by an AC, I assume you work for the EFF. Jokingly.
Re: (Score:2)
Except that comment still doesn't back up the accusation. Sending out an e-mail alleging someone else is gay is NOT illegal. At worst it's libel (if it's not true).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
While I'm a donating EFF member, that reflects my experience with their press releases. Often reading the legal papers themselves (which admittedly are linked from EFF press releases) gives a bit different picture of the situation.
I don't remember many examples now, but one recent one I do. The case where a university student got his computer hardware confiscated allegedly for sending mail to a university mailing list, alleging that his (ex-?)roommate is gay, and posting link to a profile he had allegedly m
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I would also like to hear the "other" side. Was the takedown notice just because of an alleged DMCA infringment? Or did they discuss something else?
But if we don't hear anything from Apple, what should we do? Ignore it because, hey, we couldn't hear both sides so we shouldn't cast a verdict? If our judical system worked that way, a lot of people would never be tried and judged. And while I consider ex parte verdicts horrible, NO verdict would often be worse.
Re:What's the Story (Score:5, Informative)
I believe this was the project where they were attempting to brute force the key that encrypted the song database on the newer iPhone/Touch firmwares. They did this by requesting everyone upload their own copy of the database off their device.
The purpose in doing this was to enable third party programs to actually sync with the device, since currently the only way to do so is through iTunes (even the third party programs that do so now rely on being able to hook into it's dlls).
Apple hit them with a C&D letter indicating that the project was a viloation of the DMCA, specificly an attempt to bypass DRM.
The question will be, do the courts agree with Apple?
Re: (Score:2)
The question will be, do the courts agree with Apple?
Did Apple's check clear?
Re:What's the Story (Score:5, Funny)
Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:5, Interesting)
If you want flexibility and choice then why use an iPod? I respect the BluWiki guys for standing up to Apple, but seriously, it's so much easier to take the path of least resistance and use an MP3 player that supports Explorer or Finder or command line mounting. Then you can use your player as a storage device as well. iPod and Zune are equally miserable in this regard.
My player of choice is the Creative Zen. It comes with proprietary software, but it's optional so you can use Explorer if you prefer. Only drawback is that they only come in solid-state flavours, no HDD, so the max capacity is 32GB (in case you only sit at a computer once every 3 months to add new music).
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, there are many perspectives on this. Yours advocates what I've always called "pragmatic", which boils down to (using your words) "path of least resistance" while accomplishing the desired affect. In many arenas, I'm like that too.
Others want the iPod (why? I dunno. It's spiffy and has neato features, and don't underestimate the power of "cool" and technofetishism.) But they don't want to be locked into iTunes. So, they find ways to overcome Apple's artificial monopoly-enforcement tool. I admire the tenacity, and wish them the best.
Me? I don't buy Apple stuff, not merely to avoid their lock-in traps, but as an actual statement. They get no money from me as long as they continue to use the courts and their own internal censorship systems (thread suppression on Apple fora) as their way of enforcing their vision of the world on their customers. Respect first sale and the customer's inherent right of use, and we can do business, Apple.
But that's just me.
Besides, I'm so old and crusty that I don't even bother with those new-fangled digital audio doohickeys. Now get offa my lawn!
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, I hate Apple too due to their legal threats and libellous advertising. It just so happens I had a rational argument against them this time, plus they're not the only offenders when it comes to proprietary lock-in. I'm also happy to see the EFF probing the DMCA from every angle to find the loopholes or dissolve it outright. However, like my subject says, if you buy a tool because of what it might be some day then you're setting yourself up for disappointment.
Apple - Think Different (and we'll sue you)
Re: (Score:2)
Others want the iPod (why? I dunno. It's spiffy and has neato features, and don't underestimate the power of "cool" and technofetishism.)
Honestly, couldn't care about what is cool or not. I bought a 160GB ipod classic since it was the only device on the market that had the capacity I needed. Unfortunately, it was also one of the first ipods with the new encrypted firmware.
The quality is excellent... they do take quite a beating from me. I've used my both my 160GB classic and 8 GB nano while skiing and mountainbiking, if that's any indication.
It's a shame too... if only Apple weren't so monopolistic about its products. They make MS look
Re: (Score:2)
I've got a Zen .... with a HDD? ...and it uses a proprietary interface ... but this is supported in Linux ...
Re:Don't toast bread with a hammer (Score:4, Insightful)
Apple reverse engineered (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
> They need to lighten up.
You expect Steve Jobs to lighten up?
Not going to work... (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts have an easy way out of this one. They'll declare there's no "case or controversy" and dismiss the complaint, just like they did when the RIAA threatned Dr. Felten over releasing watermarking information.
The only way to get heard in court when someone sends you a C&D is to fail to desist, and let them sue you. Of course, given the other side has far more resources, that's kind of like taking up Dirty Harry on his "Do you feel lucky, punk?" challenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Most of the cost of such lawsuits is lawyer's fees. Apple's lawyers charge on the order of $500/hour. The EFF's lawyers charge nothing.
EFF should be fighting to have the DMCA removed (Score:2)
I'll be a lot more impressed and enthused when the DMCA is simply removed, repealed, revoke or otherwise trashed from U.S. law books. It's bad law designed to enable a wide variety of people to do things copyright was never intended to do.
If frequent abuse of law isn't reason enough for its repeal, I can't imagine what is.
Re:Chicken (Score:5, Insightful)
Chickenshit?
Oh, you mean "Not willing to go to court with Apple and possibly lose his business in damages."
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, yes.
That's certainly the rational approach. You took that route, right? I mean there is a Publikwerks site out there, with all this shit already on it, waiting for Apple's legal team to find it and sue you. Right?
No? Hmmm. Too bad you are too chickenshit to stick your own neck out on the line, I might have actually considered your point a small bit valid if you had. But right now you are just a named AC throwing his own feces at the folk actually working to correct the problem.
Re:Chicken (Score:4, Insightful)
And what I'm getting at is that unless you are hosting such a site and have refused to obey a cease and desist letter from Apple, inviting them to sue you, you can STFU about his level of courage and your opinion of how he should have shot himself in the foot just to spite Apple.
He is fighting back, in a far more intelligent manner than what you proposed. If he, and you, are right that Apple doesn't have a leg to stand on, then the only harm done is that the project was delayed.
If, however, you both are wrong about Apple's legal strategy and this isn't the making of another SCO level FUD battle, in other words if the judge actually buys Apples arguement, then his method at least protects him and his users from further harm in the matter. Your method simply leaves him bankrupt.
Argue the merits of the case, argue the merits of Apple's business strategy. But unless you've already put your own balls on the fire here, keep your trollish opines on Sam's to yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
The difference is that the way he did it, if he loses, he doesn't have to pay anything.
If he had kept the content online, had been sued, and lost, he'd go bankrupt (maybe even before he got to the point of winning or losing, if he couldn't afford the legal fees).
at least that's what seems to be the consensus so far here on /. (obviously IANAL)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yet, they did Sam, because you were too chickenshit to stand up to them. Now you want to stand behind a court decision before you muster up the "courage" to re-post the posts. If you are really concerned, re-post then go to court. Defend your users.
That's pretty big talk. You do realize that being sued, even if you win, you still lose because of the lawyer fees. Apple can afford to spend millions on their lawyers, can you afford millions on your lawyers? Do you think Sam can? What he did was smart. He backed off so they couldn't bury him into the ground in legal crap and then sued for the right to repost the data. His lawyer may be charging on a comission. If they win Sam and his lawyer will get paid, and the data will be restored. If he stood u
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
Re: (Score:2)
A lot of people here seem to have a vastly skewed idea of what lawyers cost; there is no way this case would cost MILLIONS. It's actually a fairly simple issue that comes down to an interpretation of law that could be decided in one hearing.
Not even a lawyer can competantly answer how much a particular case will cost. Remember, a big company can send a team of 20 lawyers, with 100 legal aids (remember Big Tobacco lawsuits) and hold things up in court and create thousands upon thousands of pages of paperwork. What may be simple can be tied up for years. Simple rear-end car accidents can be held up in courts by insurance companies for years and you think this issue is less complex then a rear-end car accident? Besides, if this guy is right (
Re: (Score:2)
The longest, most time-consuming part of litigation tends to be discovery, and that's where the big lawyer/staff advantage really helps. The Big Tobacco cases involved tremendous amounts of discovery. But in this case I can't really se
Re: (Score:2)
Hell most people would need balls of steel to risk even 30,000$
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Court cases are not about macho concepts like "chicken." They are about money. You have your stack of money, they have their stack of money, and the Court moves money from one stack to the other. Emotional appeals are just a tool, nothing more.
If you need an analogy, analogize it to poker.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Apple (Score:5, Funny)
Anal rape in every box.
Where can I get one for my ex?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:4, Insightful)
"Seriously, there's no "Linux compatible" label on their products, so why the fuck would they buy it and THEN complain?"
There's no linux compatible sticker on anything much.
An iPod without the managing capacities of iTunes makes no sense.
Only if you're an idiot. Some of us can use these things called file systems to hold and manipulate files. They've been around a while, surprised you've never heard of them.
They should be buying a mass-storage MP3 player which requires no special software.
Like an iPod? They don't require special software, Apple just deliberately make it difficult to use with other software.
In conclusion, fuck off retard.
Re: (Score:2)
Then, you shouldn't complain when something is not compatible with Linux.
If an iPod doesn't require special software, why are you complaining?
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it's a civil rights issue.
If I buy a product, I should get to use it any way that I like that is not a genuine patent or copyright infringement.
IOW: If Apple can't proceed here without using/abusing the DMCA then they really shouldn't have any standing.
Reverse engineering and discussing reverse engineering should be speech protected not
just as a civil right but protected as being consistent with the copyright clause of
the US Constitution.
Copyright is meant as a means to SPREAD INFORMATION.
Too many people tend to forget that.
Re: (Score:2)
If it's mine then I should be able to use it in any way I like *EVEN IF* I use it to break the law .. that's my problem
Freedom of speech should mean I can *discuss* anything I like, it's only doing it that might be illegal
if this stands up in court then not only is illegal to subvert copyright restrictions but it is also illegal to discuss subverting them .... when will it be illegal to discuss DCMA?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody's violating your civil rights by offering you a product that requires special software.
That depends.
they're not violating your rights by not providing it for your platform of choice, or where it genuinely requires special software.
They ARE violating your civil rights by stopping you even talking about creating other software.
This is not "OMFG! Apple don't support linux! OMFG!", it's "A corporate behemoth is shutting down forums that talk about making other ways to interface with products we have lega
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
gtkpod and others using libgpod. Like Amarok and Rythmbox, though support is only preliminary for touch/phone.
They were all knocked back a bit last year when apple suddenly introduced a crypto hash on some of the indexes, but it was reverse engineered. I have yet to hear why there would be any reason at all to cryptographically sign a song index other than to prevent competing software from functioning properly.
And there's the other thing, if Apple had their way, they would shut all of these down. From TFA
Re: (Score:2)
"What's next, these morons will buy a PS3 and then complain to the EFF that Halo 3 doesn't work on their new console?"
Not the same thing at all.
This is about hackers wanting to build their own software for a device they bought and own as I understand it
And a company that at all cost wants to protect its eco system of products, because having third party software that you cant control/disable/make money of, is a bad thing in Cupertino....
Re:Why do these idiots keep buying iPods (Score:5, Insightful)
Learn to comprehend what's going on. They're not saying it's Apple's fault for not making the iPod compatible, they're saying Apple can't attempt to stop them from doing that work themselves.
It's entirely reasonable for Apple to say "We're not going to support that", but when they say "We're not going to support that and we'll sue you if you try to make it work", we have a fucking problem.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
DRM and DMCA, baby.
Don't you love the USA?
"Because it's there" (Score:5, Interesting)
Why do geeks buy XBoxes and try to turn them into Linux PC's or media devices? Why do people jailbreak smart phones? It's because geeks are geeks, and the challenge is fun. As George Mallory would say, it's because they're THERE.
Secondly, even on a more practical note, the iPod is just a nice piece of hardware. I've dropped mine a thousand times and abused it repeatedly (err, non-sexually!)... and you just can't break the thing. I simply haven't found that kind of quality in competing devices, and I am certainly NOT an Apple fanboy by any stretch.
I put the RockBox operating system [rockbox.org] on my iPod (which still leaves you the ability to dual-boot into Apple's OS if you need to)... and now my iPod functions as a typical mass-storage player. I don't need iTunes, can just copy music files on and off like a USB stick, and have support for any format I'd want (e.g. OGG, Flac, etc). Combine that with the sheer quality of the hardware (my iPod has lasted three times longer than any previous player I've had), and I'm a happy geek. If other people want to port other OS's to the device, then that's awesome and more power to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Because it's there" (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Why does everyone always side with the little g (Score:3, Informative)
Actually the newer songs don't have DRM at all. Of course you're right about older songs that are still encrypted with Fairplay.
The thing is, it's not about the music files anyway. DRM'ed or not, you can move the file around. The problem seems to be the files database itself that's been encrypted.
Reminds me of the old Tengen vs Nintendo case. If I remember corretly, they lost in the USA but won in Canada.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Congress enacted the law which Apple claims as the grounds for its action.