scousi Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 This does not make me want to spend money on Apple stuff. No iPod upgrade for me. http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/3/6/3080 This DCMA process is rediculous. ISPs don't want trouble so they just take a site down with a simple letter. All these takedown notices should go through judges or abitrators. Giving quasi-judicial powers to corporations is the most rediculous thing I have ever heard of. Apple is not a judge. They are obviously biased. Where's the justice in all this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stefisun Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I like my MAC address too, I even change it every once in a while. What does it have to do with Apple though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyrana Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I fixed the title.. Mac not MAC... My congressman didn't vote for the DMCA. Apple isn't alone in doing this sort of thing, if you think they are special in it, you need to remove the anti-Apple blinders. Not that I approve of said actions in general, and I hate the DMCA. It seems every company uses the DCMA to smack people down and get what they want lately... Lastly, I don't believe it. The DMCA doesn't really apply to what that stupid web site says it does. (Plus, they were saying DCMA at one point, not DMCA. lol). Apple typically does a cease and desist order in cases such as this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scousi Posted March 7, 2006 Author Share Posted March 7, 2006 I fixed the title.. Mac not MAC... My congressman didn't vote for the DMCA. Apple isn't alone in doing this sort of thing, if you think they are special in it, you need to remove the anti-Apple blinders. Not that I approve of said actions in general, and I hate the DMCA. It seems every company uses the DCMA to smack people down and get what they want lately... Lastly, I don't believe it. The DMCA doesn't really apply to what that stupid web site says it does. (Plus, they were saying DCMA at one point, not DMCA. lol). Apple typically does a cease and desist order in cases such as this. I don't know if Apple uses it more than others or they get more press about it but they sure seem to be trigger happy. I don't know how the DCMA has anything to do with a video of a rumored product that was proven to be false. It seems they are using it because: 1) It's easy 2) Small ISPs will comply without even checking. It's a lot cheaper for them to lose a small client. All I'm saying is that even though there may be legitimate reasons for the legislation, the process of takedown has to be changed so that someone impartial (ie judge) decides if there may be a violation. If you look at Apple's history of using it, they have never gone after large sites. Only the small helpless ones. Anyways, as far as I'm concerned, it just makes them look foolish. I haven't even heard of one case where Microsoft used it. Just look at Microsoft's approach when the Origami project came to light. It'll be interesting if Apple goes against Microsoft for reverse engineering the iPod to make it compatible with the Xbox 360. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Metrogirl Posted March 7, 2006 Share Posted March 7, 2006 I agree with Cyrana that whatever that site might have inferred about Apple products, that could hardly be in violation of the hated DMCA. More likely that a Cease and Desist notice would be served for release of proprietary material or defamatory statements - but even in these cases pictures of the exterior a potential new product would hardly qualify. Something very fishy about that. If what they say is true, I expect I'll be receiving a personal DMCA notice for my (bogus) picture of the Microsoft Vacuum Cleaner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts