Apple cowardly going after bloggers once again
 

ArcticStones, if only Apple Legal listened to your observations:

Instead they sent a DMCA C&D letter to a blog, asking them to take down an embedded youtube video. They were however not ballsy enough to do the same thing to youtube.

Here's the mail:

"VIA E-MAIL

NOT FOR POSTING

Re: Apple Computer Copyrighted Material Illegally Disseminated by Crunchgear.com

To Whom It May Concern:
We represent Apple Computer, Inc. (”Apple”). It has come to our attention that your website, at http://crunchgear.com/2006/08/28/how...-os-x-leopard/, is posting a video demonstrating certain features of Apple’s new operating system, Mac OS X 10.5 (aka “Leopard”). While we appreciate your interest in Leopard, it has not yet been released to the public. The software demonstrated in the video must therefore be running on a pre-release developer’s build of OS X 10.5. All such builds have been distributed to developers under strict terms of confidentiality that prohibit the dissemination of screenshots or other displays of the software. The builds are also copyrighted by Apple, and U.S. copyright law explicitly prohibits unauthorized displays of copyrighted works.

Apple therefore requests that you remove this video from your website and take steps to prevent any further distribution of videos or screenshots of Apple software without Apple’s authorization. If you are represented by counsel, please provide me with the identity of that counsel.

Thank you in advance for your cooperation,

/s/ Ian Ramage

Ian Ramage
O’Melveny & Myers LLP
Embarcadero Center West
275 Battery Street, Suite 2600
San Francisco, CA 94111
(415) 984-xxxx (direct)
(415) 984-xxxx (fax)
xxxx@omm.com

DMCA Certification: I hereby state, under penalty of perjury, that I have a good faith belief that your activities are not authorized by Apple, that the information in this notification is accurate, and that I am authorized to act on behalf of Apple in this regard."

Source and extra comments:
http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=268

Result:
The bloggers have deactivated their youtube link:
http://crunchgear.com/2006/08/28/how...-os-x-leopard/
but the youtube video is still there:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xcOZc3rv8-Q
and Apple has basically the same sequence, just a little glitzier and with sound here:
http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spaces.html

Keeping part of the new features confidential is fine, singling out bloggers but leaving alone those who could afford to successfully fight such frivolous nastygrams is both cowardice and bad PR.

I see; sort of like the RIAA going after individual file sharers, but not daring to take legal actions against commercial news sites? (I presume YouTube is raking in a substantial amount of money from advertisements, whereas the blog in question is not.)

Oh well, that’s making a glaring inconsistency transparent to everybody, isn’t it? :rolleyes:

And how do you know that?
I've seen no declaration by YouTube that they didn't receive a letter from Apple.
You have some inside information?

Just because the video is still up on YouTube is no indication one way or the other. They could well have received a letter and be ignoring it (or "studying it").

Seems the easiest thing is to see whether or not the video remains accessible on YouTube, and whether Apple takes legal steps against them. That should settle Voldenuit’s point in a clear-cut fashion. ;)

No it doesn't.

If I send out private letters to A & B asking them to do something, and A does it (while publicizing my letter) but B doesn't do it (and doesn't publicize my letter), then the world at large doesn't know anything at all about my letter to B. And I might decide afterwards that I don't want to pursue the issue, so nothing else appears publicly.

The point is that posters should refrain from making statements in areas where they have no knowledge.

yeah well i have 'seen' the bittorrents of 10.5 beta. its out there and its very accessible.

No.
Fair point, but nonetheless it seems to be a completely over-the-top reaction to go after the blogger rather than the place where the content really resides.

And the "NOT FOR POSTING" header is fairly ridicule as well, see the comment here: http://www.boingboing.net/2006/08/31...er_sends_.html .

If Apple e-mailed youtube at the same time, they're "considering" the question since August 30th, which is quite a while for a DMCA notice...

Apple going for the (seemingly) easy target is not a new theme:
http://forums.macosxhints.com/showthread.php?t=56368

Let's see how it works out...

I don't think so.
The video appeared in place on the blogger's page. It wasn't merely a link to a YouTube page.
The location where the content is stored on disk, or whose server it is that actually transmits the bytes to the browser is a technical matter.

Suppose, to make the issue clearer, that YouTube merely provided a hosting service and didn't provide any access to the videos on their own pages. I.e. suppose that the only way you could see a YouTube video was if someone provided access to it on their web page and that YouTube's only involvement was to provide the back-end servers.
A concerned party (e.g. Apple) might indeed send a letter to the company providing the hosting services, but the main letter would be to the individual who has the web page.

If the above isn't clear, here's an analogy:
Suppose that my neighbour has a pornographic video playing over a wireless network. If I hook up to that wireless network and then set up a screen in my front window showing that video to passersby, it would be me that would be likely to be prosecuted. Whether or not my neighbour also had screens in public view would be irrelevant to my own case.

How about we keep the thread on topic, folks.

My fault – I suggested Apple bring improved ethics into Leopard. :o And I s’pose one thing led to another.