Ask YC: Apple sent me a takedown notice - what should I do? | Hacker News Reader

Ask YC: Apple sent me a takedown notice - what should I do?

30 pointsSam_Odio35 comments

Apple recently sent my wiki a takedown notice regarding content a user contributed. The backstory just got picked up on slashdot: http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/11/20/201246&from=rss

It's the policy of the wiki to embrace free speech where-ever possible. Does anyone have any experience fighting this kind of stuff? I don't even know a lawyer that could advise me on what my rights are as a host and/or how much it would cost to contest it.

Slashdotters seem to think the letter isn't legit (http://tinyurl.com/fakedmca), but obviously slashdot comments won't sway a judge.

View on HN

I know the EFF is small, and maybe doesn't have the resources to offer advice, but might that be an option? (http://eff.org)

I think they explicitly say that they offer advice for these situations, so it's certainly worth a shot.

They gave some good advice to me when I was threatened with being sued by Archos a few years ago, so I'd definitely recommend talking it over with them to see where you stand.

And for those of us with income: don't forget to donate to EFF. http://www.eff.org/support

My employer matches any donations 1:1, so be sure to check with yours.

Talk to a lawyer. Someone on hacker news can direct you to someone with experience in this area. Reach out to contacts you might have yourself.

Personally, I wouldn't take anything down without talking to a lawyer first.

I agree. Slashdot is not an adequate substitute for people who know what they are talking about.

That reminds me why I never buy from Apple. Or anyone else who wants to take away my freedom.

I had an email from Archos threatening to sue me when I was developing an open source alternative to their firmware on the Archos handheld video players. I reverse engineered their firmware format and started on a new firmware.

The EFF were helpful and gave some free advice over the phone, though mainly it was emails back and forth between me, and the Archos CEO that seemed to 'resolve' it. I think they realized they didn't really have anything to fear with an alternate firmware, and got tired of paying a lawyer to email me.

These companies aren't taking anyones freedom away, they're just being big companies protecting their interests.

These companies aren't taking anyones freedom away, they're just being big companies protecting their interests.

The first part of this sentence is not true. It also doesn't follow from trhe second part.

If I bought an iPod or iPhone I'd want the freedom to use it however I like. This includes the freedom to program it, or run someone else's software on it. If Apple don't like that, they should sell electronic devices in the first place -- once they have sold them they have no moral right to decide how they are used.

Apple and other vendors attempt to lock down hardware and software with DRM. The whole point of DRM to to remove people's freedom; therefore Apple clearly are taking people's freedom away.

The whole point of DRM to to remove people's freedom; therefore Apple clearly are taking people's freedom away.

No, it's not. Apple don't use DRM because they're anti-freedom. Is this really what you're suggesting? That Apple looked at DRM and thought, "Hey, what a great way we can take away some freedom, let's do that!"? They do it to protect their interests against competitors, pirates, etc. Perhaps they don't need to take all the measures they do, and opening things up a bit more wouldn't harm them. But they're perfectly entitled to try to stop people from doing these things.

Don't forget it was pretty much required by the music labels to get the songs into the ITMS in the first place. I don't doubt that there was a benefit analysis related to limiting people sharing around downloaded songs, but I think that the music labels bear the majority of the blame in this situation.

Apple don't use DRM because they're anti-freedom.

You misunderstand me. I don't think that's why Apple use DRM. Clearly, Apple use DRM becasue they think they will make more profits if they do than if they don't.

Apple's end-goal is to increase profits. Their means-goal is DRM. Reducing my freedom is, from Apple's point of view, reducing my freedom is merely a side-effect, and not one they're particularly bothered about either way.

Similarly, a burglar steals my stuff not because he wants to prevent me from having it, but because he wants himself to have it; preventing me from having it is merely a side effect.

(I suspect the misunderstanding comes from my poor phrasing; instead of saying "The whole point of DRM to remove people's freedom" I should have said "DRM intrinsically invovles removing people's freedom".)

But they're perfectly entitled to try to stop people from doing these things.

It's true that the law allows Apple to make legal threats against those to wish to use their iPod or iPhone in creative ways. It's a bad law.

Although its clear I'm not going to change your mind, I would only point out that the law you're talking about exists to allow companies to enforce other longstanding laws, specifically copyright.

Just because you would like to be allowed to copy any media off any device doesn't mean that should be possible. Your interests are not the only ones to consider. Under the law, content producers have rights too, and it's reasonable to expect them to try to protect those rights. Anyone certainly has the capacity to (attempt to) rob a bank, but that doesn't mean adding a safe is taking away their freedom.

Now, ultimately, I think DRM is both a waste of effort and bad business, but it's disingenuous to call it a moral issue; it isn't. It's a legitimate disagreement between competing interests.

Sure, adding a safe isn't taking away my freedom, but putting a safe in my house and putting anything in there, then telling me I can't touch IS taking away my freedom.

If it's my house, I can do whatever I want inside it.

Taking up space isn't the same as taking up freedom. And, the analogy doesn't hold up: Power meters are in your house, but you're not allowed to tamper with them. So are mailboxes.

Laws don't go away when you enter your front door. You can't murder, you can't beat your children, and you can't steal from people, even electronically.

Being inside your house does grant you some rights, like to privacy, and against unreasonable searches. It isn't completely obvious, though, whether or not DRM violates those rights.

Again, I don't like DRM anymore than the next guy, but it's not a black and white issue. And it's made worse by the fact that the laws it seeks to protect haven't been updated for far too long.

Exactly. DRM is usually there to make it difficult to do something that is illegal anyway. With music, it's just as illegal to copy (copyrighted) non-DRM music as it is to copy DRM-protected music. The reason the DRM is there is because people still share music, even though it's illegal. It's the same reason we put locks on our doors: if everyone were law-abiding law, we wouldn't need them, but we do need them because people do break the law. It's not about freedom at all -- it's about stopping people breaking copyright (and other) laws, laws which still apply even when DRM isn't used.

And you are entitled to do exactly as you wish - reprogram it, hack it, reverse engineer it.

It's when you share your findings with the world that the issue arises. You may be exposing trade secrets, copyrighted material etc, or enabling others to circumvent copy protection.

I don't know about DRM, it's optional in Apple products anyway. I have several Apple devices and have never used any DRM. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate and say: it might suck, but under the current rules Apple is legally in the right. And it could further be argued that they are entitled to dictate how you use their products.

I used the analogy of playwrights who won't let you perform their plays unless you do it exactly to their specifications once. I think that Apple has the right to do this, even if it's making a bunch of people mad.

The DMCA has certain requirements about taking stuff down in response to a claim. There is also a provision for restoring content in the event of a counterclaim. All of this was designed in the context of copyright infringement by a third party, while you are have an (alleged) circumvention device and are self-hosting, so I'm not sure how that would apply.

In any event, you should consider taking content down (including wiki history etc) until you have received legal advice. It would suck if you were ultimately in a position to prevail, but ended up in trouble over procedural technicalities.

IANAL (or even in the US!), etc.

Some resources if you don't go the lawyer route:

http://www.chillingeffects.org/question.cgi?QuestionID=132 http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca/counter512.pdf http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~dst/Terrorism/form-letter.html

Fairplay DRM I get.

C&D's for reverse engineering for interoperability purposes --- something specifically allowed by the DMCA --- I don't get.

Either way congrats on the publicity.

Hopefully this is all serendipitous!

It's easy enough to find out if the letter is legit with a few phone calls and consultation of reliable phone directories.

move your servers to venezuela and tell them to fuck themselves

And make sure your domain is not with godaddy.

make sure your domain is not with godaddy

Can you elaborate?

References?

Personal experiences?

http://nodaddy.com/

I've actually been looking for a decent domain service to transfer my 50 or so godaddy domains to.. Any suggestions guys?

I love Joker personally. I can't speak to their resistance to corporate pressure, but they've been a great company to deal with.

See my post here on how to get $7.75 domain names without hassle:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=340826

EDIT: Here's a link that will give me about 70 cents of your first order (I've been recommending them here for almost a year, so I'm curious to see if people will sign up, etc.) http://www.dynadot.com/?s7h8k6z57v36m8e

Gandi.net ... Not the cheapest, but reliable as hell and not based out of the US.

I'm moving mine to name.com (great support)...

People often suggest this sort of thing as if it was some sort of magical protection. If you're running something that's illegal in the US and are a resident in the US, it doesn't matter one bit for the lawsuit (other than it being more annoying to collect evidence) if the servers are in another country.

the whole point is to avoid ever exposing yourself as a US resident

you use a whois proxying service to block your ID. and when company C tries to strongarm the ISP over which they have no jurisdiction, they get told to bugger off.

I can't imagine that working when moving an existing site as suggested.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com