

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

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&#38;from=rss<p>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.<p>Slashdotters seem to think the letter isn't legit (http://tinyurl.com/fakedmca), but obviously slashdot comments won't sway a judge.
======
apgwoz
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>)

~~~
axod
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.

------
boucher
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.

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

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

~~~
axod
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.

~~~
cabalamat
_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.

~~~
jgranby
_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.

~~~
cabalamat
_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.

~~~
boucher
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.

~~~
BeeBopPlanet
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.

~~~
boucher
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.

~~~
jgranby
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.

------
andrewf
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.

------
wmf
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>

------
tptacek
Fairplay DRM I get.

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

------
paul9290
Either way congrats on the publicity.

Hopefully this is all serendipitous!

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

------
crabapple
move your servers to venezuela and tell them to fuck themselves

~~~
wesley
And make sure your domain is not with godaddy.

~~~
t0pj
_make sure your domain is not with godaddy_

Can you elaborate?

References?

Personal experiences?

~~~
joshwa
<http://nodaddy.com/>

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

~~~
vlad
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>

