toggle

AAPL Stock: 423 ( -8.77 )

MacNN News

http://www.macnn.com/articles/04/09/16/ipoddownload.pulled/

Apple forces developer to remove free iTunes plugin

updated 06:25 pm EDT, Thu September 16, 2004

", 0, 0);

iPodDownload pulled

Apple has forced a small developer to that allowed users to easily copy music from an iPod. Sylvain Demongeot, who recently released the program, says that his ISP shutdown his website in response to an Apple note indicating "unauthorized use of iTunes software code." A message on the website from Apple to Demongeot's web hosting company (ISP) reads: "Specifically, we have learned that unauthorized Apple iTunes software code is being used in a computer program called 'iPodDownload 1.0'. The material is currently available for download on the wildbits.com web site, hosted by your company, at the following URL." The developer says he removed the free software plugin to restore access to his website, which was shutdown by the ISP for more than an hour. Demongeot says that Apple never contacted him and that he is still waiting for an explanation of the violation.

by MacNN Staff

Post tools:

TAGS :

Apple

toggle

Comments

LordJohnWhorfin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

09/16, 06:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
This is a disgrace.

Good bye free speech, just because they have the expensive team of attorneys they can lie and libel all they want and get away with it.
Apple is essentially accusing the guy of making pirated software available, a completely unsubstantiated accusation.
And what does his ISP do instead of telling them to fvck off? they shut down his web site without bothering to even check whether there is an ounce of validity to Apple's absurd claim.
I'm glad Yoko Ono gave these fvckers a taste of their own medicine, they deserve it. b*******. What is the world coming to.

MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

09/16, 06:58pm | report spam | close Reply |
don't need to check...

If apple has a court order for that site to be taken down.. then it must be done.. Apple has proved it to a court that the person is violating some kind of law. It has nothing to do with Free Speech.. by your attitude, if I upload a hack to my website that allows the demo of Photoshop to be the full version, that it's free speech? I think not.. as there might be some practical use for the iPod downloaded.. any person with half a mind knows that it is going to be used for illegal purposes. in the rare case that someone has a system crash and they need to get their music on their iPod back to the hard drive.. well.. should have backed up.. I do it daily.. he can say that is the reason for his program, but we all know better.. don't try crying free speech when someone is breaking the law.. posting a piece of software isn't speech as I remember it... if he only had words posted there.. that would be different..

PookJP
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

09/16, 07:01pm | report spam | close Reply |
What's that Program...

... that lets you download all the songs from an iPod?

coolfactor
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2003

0

09/16, 07:20pm | report spam | close Reply |
sent author an email

On his website, he states he's waiting for an explanation since he doesn't understand his violation. I think he's playing dumb. He has to realize that Apple created the iPod and iTunes and has full right to how they can and can not be used together. He doesn't have a clue.

LordJohnWhorfin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

09/16, 07:37pm | report spam | close Reply |
YOU don't have a clue

" If apple has a court order for that site to be taken down.. then it must be done.."

Of course, Apple is the be all and end all of Law and Justice. Apple knows. Apple is all mighty, all knowing, all benign.

f*** that. Apple uses its weight to intimidate smaller companies into doing what they want, regardless of whether they have any right to do it, just because the smaller companies would rather capitulate and inconvenience a customer than spend millions fighting Apple's lawyers in court. That's the problem these days, it no longer matters whether you're right or wrong: all that matters is how long you can afford to pay your lawyers.
Apple is behaving like a despicable big bully.
Hopefully Sylvain will find an Indian or Chinese site to host his plug-in.

MichaelNH
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jul 2002

0

09/16, 07:49pm | report spam | close Reply |
umm huh?

So you expect Apple to just call up the guy and be like "hey you are violating our software.. be a nice guy and take it down, okay?".. umm no.. that person knows they are doing something wrong... so they shouldn't waste their time with someone that is hacking their software... get a judge to okay shutting it down.. then telling the guy to do it or else is site won't go back up.. trying to negotiate with a law breaker makes no sense.. he already broke some kind of law.. Apple did it the right way.. the ISP was covering their butt..

SergioRS
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

09/16, 07:51pm | report spam | close Reply |
Clue?

There are many many programs that are, and have been available for quite some time that allow you to take songs off the iPod. IMHO Apple's objection to this plug-in in particular is how seamlessly it integrates with iTunes. (by the way - it works GREAT!)

jpellino
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

09/16, 08:25pm | report spam | close Reply |
huh?

"...just because they have the expensive team of attorneys they can lie and libel all they want and get away with it."

Well then by your own standards, you need to prove they lied and you need to prove they libeled someone.

But you haven't - you're just ranting.

"Apple is essentially accusing the guy of making pirated software available, a completely unsubstantiated accusation."

How do you know it's unsubstantiated? Have you seen any legal papers on this (I'll bet no) or the alleged infinging code? (I'll bet no again).

"Of course, Apple is the be all and end all of Law and Justice. Apple knows. Apple is all mighty, all knowing, all benign."

No one said that - again, it's just you ranting.

Let's look at the reasonable possibilities here -

If he used code from iTunes or iPod to make his hack, then he's in violation of copyright law. Apple's within their rights.

If he circumvented iTunes or iPod / Fairplay DRM, then he's in violation of the license to use the program(s) and promoting the same by distributing the software. Again, Apple's within their rights.

Sure, someone can claim there's other uses for the software, but when it gets right down to it, if a developer has something that 'happens' to circumvent copycode or other proprietary schemes, they have to show that there is a significant competing use for the code/device or else... the key word there is significant. I've seen people go thru this rundown on small technical details and win - because the primary use was great and the possibility of using this thing to crack copycode was very small and never widely known.

Look, a gun can be used as a hammer to fix a sticking door. But it's not a significant competing use, it's not why you go to a gun store, and it's not why guns get locks. Their universally understood primary use is to fire potentially lethal rounds. You can stop equivocating.

iPod / iTunes / Fairplay allows you to copy your music on up to 5 computers. This piece apparently circumvents that, and anyone looking at this who knows the territory has to acknowledge that it does so, and therefore is fair game for the copyright / software holder / developer (Apple et. al.).

In case you still don't get it, go spend long periods of time - say full time employment for you and lots of colleagues - creating world class software, developing a decent revenue model, and then watching a succession of clueless crackers try to dismantle it and then play Eddie Haskell and claim gosh, Mrs. Cleaver, they don't know what all the fuss is about.

LordJohnWhorfin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

09/16, 08:36pm | report spam | close Reply |
You still don't get it

I know it's unsubstantiated because THEY DID NOT SUBSTANTIATE IT! In other words, all they had to do was to CLAIM Sylvain's software infringed, and his ISP rolled over. Do you even understand the difference between a CLAIM and its substantiation?

I'm not even going to bother answering the rest of YOUR rant. You're just some republican troll a******.

sbjordal
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jul 2000

0

09/16, 09:15pm | report spam | close Reply |
Why go after the ISP?

I have issues with Apple going after the ISP in this case. Apple should send a cease and desist letter to the Author of the program, and threaten legal action to the author, not the ISP.
We'll all have problems if ISP are being held liable for what customers do. This is definitely reminiscent of RIAA suing Verizon and other huge ISP for not relasing customer names. The ISPs are a 3rd party here, and we, as customers need to know that they will not cave. Ofcourse, the ISP can take whatever action they need against the customer who (probably) broke their rules, but that's between the ISP and the customer.
This whole thing sounds like a cop-out on Apple behalf; they knew flaunting the DMCA to the ISP would be all that was needed.
Note: i Love Apple, but question their methods in this case.

skribble
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Feb 2004

0

09/16, 09:26pm | report spam | close Reply |
Apple has these rights...

I quite sure that the software developer in question utilized Apple's SDK, by doing so the developer is agreeing to the terms of use. If he violates any of the terms Apple sets fouth Apple has the right to do what they did.

Visnaut
Senior User

Joined: Nov 2000

0

09/16, 09:41pm | report spam | close Reply |
Not as bad as it seems

First of all, whatever communiqu� Apple sent to the ISP is not shown in its entirety on the developer's web site. No one in a legal department would begin an email with the word "Specifically". In fact, it implies that a previous statement of fact has been made earlier in the text, but not shown in the excerpt forwarded to Mr. Demongeot; that is, if we are to assume that email is also shown in its entirety, and not edited by Mr. Demongeot himself.

Therefore, I can comfortably conclude that whatever claim Apple made to the ISP was reasonably substantiated to them, in order for them to conclude that their Abuse Policy had been broken by Mr. Demongeot, who must have had to agree to and abide by such policy when he purchased those services from ProHosting.

We can further make the assumption that Apple Inc. has no obligation to substantiate their claims to Lord John Whorfin in private or in public, given the fact that he, or any others besides Mr. Demongeot, are not even remotely considered to be involved parties in this dispute.

And lastly, if I may make my own personal objective observation, anyone who uses ALL CAPS, multiple exclamation points, and statements such as "(political affiliation) troll a******" to punctuate their arguments over the internet are not very convincing, and amount to nothing more than rambling fools.

Oh and one more thing: who cares? There are plenty of other software that lets you copy music from an iPod. This one just crossed Apple's line because it made it easy to do so from inside iTunes, and cherry pick the songs you want. That's not something you constantly need access to in iTunes, as opposed to standalone programs that have a justifiable use, and are unopposed by Apple.

LouZer
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Nov 2000

0

09/17, 12:20am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: disgrace

Good bye free speech, just because they have the expensive team of attorneys they can lie and libel all they want and get away with it.

What lie? What libel? You don't need an expensive team of attorneys to file a complaint. Anyone can do it.

I guess you're fine with people complaining to abuse@domain.net if some user is spamming from an account, but posting a suspect program is OK? Fine, then don't complain when you get 200 spam messages a day from this guy.

Apple is essentially accusing the guy of making pirated software available, a completely unsubstantiated accusation.

No, they're not accusing him of pirating software. It specifically says "unauthorized Apple iTunes� software code", which to you apparently implies pirating software, but it actually means the illegal use of code.

And what does his ISP do instead of telling them to fvck off? they shut down his web site without bothering to even check whether there is an ounce of validity to Apple's absurd claim.

Why should the ISP care? ISPs aren't generally going to spend their own money on some crusade you want them to take on. First, they'd have to spend time/money to determine who's got the higher stance. Why should they waste their time, esp. for a low-end customer.

BTW, you seem to just believe Apple is in the wrong, but there's an obvious and easy proof to show this guy (and you) are off-base. As someone else said here, there's a boatload of other programs to do this. Those are still available. So why is this one different? The stupid thing is integrated into iTunes. That's a violation of the end-user license you agree to when you install the software. You don't like it, fine, don't use iTunes (no one forces you, by the way). But the agreemenet specifically forbids this type of use (as I recall from one of those previous hacks that hooked into iTunes to allow you to download music from other's iTunes).

Finally, being a poor, idiotic user, you wouldn't care. But Apple is a company that has to (a) protect its software rights, and (b) keep on the good side of the music industry, as both are very important to their bottom line. Basically, Apple has to go after all people who violate this or that, otherwise they risk the next violator saying "Apple didn't stop that guy from doing this, so that indicates they intended to let anyone do it." And if Apple doesn't keep on the good side of the music pirates, they drop their agreements, and then the iTMS goes the way of eWorld. Which wouldn't be a big problem if Apple wasn't basing so much of their current existence on the music side of life.

LordJohnWhorfin
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Aug 2002

0

09/17, 01:02am | report spam | close Reply |
You make my point

Anybody can send a cease and desist order to an ISP, but if you get one from Apple Legal chances are you'll be a little more responsive than if it comes from Joe Schmoe. The point is that because of their size and clout they don't need to prove any of what they claim: all they have to do is move their weight around and people obey.

Also, about what you call an "easy proof": the license you claim he violated is part of the plug-in SDK. How do you know Sylvain used the SDK to develop his plug-in? He may have reverse-engineered the host code, he may have simply used some sample code he found on the net. The "agreement" in question may even have absolutely zero validity in his country of residence. But do you even stop two seconds to think about that? Neeeeeeuh, it's so easy to take Apple's side no matter what. Frickin idiot.

+ spiral +
Dedicated MacNNer

Joined: Jun 2001

0

09/17, 01:23am | report spam | close Reply |
Going after the ISP

Most ISP's have terms and conditions you agree to when you use their hosting services. Posting this software probably violated something in that agreement and it was easy for Apple to shut the site down that way.

PookJP
Mac Enthusiast

Joined: Jan 2001

0

09/17, 01:41am | report spam | close Reply |
Anyway...

What's that program that lets you browse the iPod and selectively remove songs from it?

SergioRS
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Sep 2004

0

09/17, 02:13am | report spam | close Reply |
RE: Anyway...

>>What's that program that lets you browse the iPod and selectively remove songs from it?

aafuss
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

09/17, 05:25am | report spam | close Reply |
my view

Apple can shutdown open-source programs, if it violates the DMCA or copyright laws or piracy in someway

tabarnak
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jan 2003

0

09/17, 08:37am | report spam | close Reply |
what's the point?

there is ton of software that let you do that, even audion has it as a feature. it was just pratical to have this in iTunes. and why would apple care, we can't transfer songs from itms.

anyway, i had the chance to download it before, i just hope it will work with future version of iTunes

jpellino
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Oct 1999

0

09/17, 08:53am | report spam | close Reply |
sheesh.

1. i'm an independent
2. we're raising issues and asking questions here - you're drawing conclusions. Instead of backing up your assertions, you're attacking forum members. It's amusing for a moment or two, but basically it's just bullying. As far as the substance of allegations, remember - absence of proof is not proof of absence. I'd suspect Apple went for the ISP because they're in the US, and the developer is in France. WHOIS told us that.
3. you seem pretty sure about the definitions of 'lie' and 'libel' - too bad you don't know the legal definition of 'fighting words' This is a community, not a road house.

slytle
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Apr 2002

0

09/17, 09:16am | report spam | close Reply |
Not Serious

Apple's not very serious about this... A quick web search will get you a download of this plug-in. If Apple was serious about getting rid of this software, they would have sent the developer a cease and desist letter directly and had them remove it from every location that they knew of (.ie macupdate.com.) Something's fishy with this story...

As for jpellina's comment, Apple is an international company. The developer being in France would have no bearing on how this was dealt with.

testudo
Forum Regular

Joined: Aug 2001

0

09/17, 10:06am | report spam | close Reply |
Re: easy proof

Also, about what you call an "easy proof": the license you claim he violated is part of the plug-in SDK. How do you know Sylvain used the SDK to develop his plug-in? He may have reverse-engineered the host code, he may have simply used some sample code he found on the net. The "agreement" in question may even have absolutely zero validity in his country of residence. But do you even stop two seconds to think about that? Neeeeeeuh, it's so easy to take Apple's side no matter what. Frickin idiot.

If you're using iTunes (the software), you agree to its license when you first install it/run it. The license specifically forbids this activity (which is why Apple went after that other software that used iTunes to download music being shared and listened to) WITHIN ITUNES! That's it. It wouldn't matter if he hand-wrote this thing in machine code. You don't like it, stop using iTunes.

Oh, using sample code from the internet doesn't mean you're not violating some rights. The sample code could be a violation too. You can't use the "Umm, I don't know, I just found it. So it must be OK" defense.

Next up is the fact that there's already several pieces of software out there (that Apple hasn't pulled) that let's you do this. I remember finding several on VersionTracker a year ago. Why hasn't Apple pushed them out of business? Because they don't integrate into iTunes. Hmmm, see a pattern. Its not about the code, but how its implemented.

Finally, the point about did he use the SDK or whatever is stupid, since YOU DON'T KNOW EITHER. How do you know he didn't. More-so, how do you know Apple doesn't know he did (a quick look at the plug-in itself may be able to let you know this). You're argument seems completely on a "Hey, the three words I read on-line just looks like Apple's being a bully, so I'm going to assume that's all they're doing, and they did no investigation at all".

Sorry, but you complaining about people always taking apple's side. Seems you're frickin' idiot h***-bent to be against Apple, regardless of circumstance. And I'm sure you'll just ignore all the above, state again "Apple hasn't proved anything to my satisfaction, they haven't given me their paperwork, therefore they are in the wrong!" attitude.

jonsaw
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Jun 2002

0

09/18, 09:16pm | report spam | close Reply |
Another reason

Another reason Apple gets upset when a developer creates a piece of code that integrates with an Apple application, is that it changes (even if it just adds to) the behavior of that app, and may also change some aspects, however small, of the app's user interface. Thus Apple no long retains control over the "user experience", at the very least, and at worst, bugs in the third-party plugin might cause trouble that users might blame Apple for, thus generating support calls to Apple that Apple shouldn't have to handle, and might not be able to get to the bottom of, especially if the user forgets to (or decides not to) tell Apple that they installed that plugin.

I personally don't believe that these possibilities should be regarded as justification for hands-off software license policies--I think users should be allowed to modify commercial software for their personal use, since the amount and kind of potential harm is almost always going to be less than the good done in most such modifications. I would have thought that the "fair use" legal wars over VCRs would have had some application here.

Once you buy other products, it's your right to change their appearance and functionality (gluing stuff on your car even if it's a Jaguar, shortening the legs on a table even if you bought it from Ikea, etc.), but software is currently in a different legal category. In whatever way that the powers that be managed that, it's a fact, and takes the form of a license agreement where things like this are stated to be "not allowed". Sylvain is an excellent programmer, and knows how to write software that really stands out; he's been around for a long time, and so I'm a little surprised that he didn't realize he'd be stepping on Apple's toes by making his util a plugin for iTunes instead of a standalone app (which is how the other utils that do essentially the same thing manage to not provoke Apple). I'm guessing that's Apple's real beef, since I doubt if Sylvain incorporated any actual Apple copyrighted code into iPodDownload.

I've seen this before--an app that violates one of Apple's license agreements, gets accused of containing copyrighted code; maybe any reference in an app to things as basic as variable names that are also used in the app being modified, are considered copyrighted code. Or, maybe there's something to the argument that the development environment the author used, if Apple's, injects some code into each piece of software it's used to create, which Apple uses as a convenient legal excuse to attack it.

rockhaus
Fresh-Faced Recruit

Joined: Mar 2003

0

09/19, 06:24pm | report spam | close Reply |
Free Speech

Forcing the shut down of the site in most definitely an infringement on free speech. A cease and desist would have been more responsible, but shutting down the site worked in terms of immediately stopping legal downloads of the plugin. Legal as compared to the alternative ways of downloading that are still available, and, unless the author limits the license to distribute, the alternative downloads are still legal.

It is a free product. I would be surprised if the author regrets that it is out there and still available. Now it up to Apple to break it in the next iTunes, iPod, or Security Update/s.

Show More Comments

Login Here

toggle

Network Headlines

06/19	Texas firm sues Apple over iPhone's...
06/19	First Look: Apple Airport Extreme with...
06/19	Parallels Desktop 8 for Mac updates...
06/19	Apple wins $30M iPad contract with...
06/19	Apple patent head Boris Teksler leaves...

Show All

06/19	Texas firm sues Apple over iPhone's...
06/19	First Look: Apple Airport Extreme with...
06/19	Apple TV 5.3 update adds HBO Go, Sky...
06/19	Dish gives up on Sprint merger attempt...
06/19	Schematics allegedly show dimensions...

Show All

toggle

Apple forces developer to remove free iTunes plugin

updated 06:25 pm EDT, Thu September 16, 2004

iPodDownload pulled

This is a disgrace.

don't need to check...

What's that Program...

sent author an email

YOU don't have a clue

umm huh?

Clue?

huh?

You still don't get it

Why go after the ISP?

Apple has these rights...

Not as bad as it seems

Re: disgrace

You make my point

Going after the ISP

Anyway...

RE: Anyway...

my view

what's the point?

sheesh.

Not Serious

Re: easy proof

Another reason

Free Speech

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace

Apple forces developer to remove free iTunes plugin

updated 06:25 pm EDT, Thu September 16, 2004

iPodDownload pulled

Related Articles

Recent Articles

This is a disgrace.

don't need to check...

What's that Program...

sent author an email

YOU don't have a clue

umm huh?

Clue?

huh?

You still don't get it

Why go after the ISP?

Apple has these rights...

Not as bad as it seems

Re: disgrace

You make my point

Going after the ISP

Anyway...

RE: Anyway...

my view

what's the point?

sheesh.

Not Serious

Re: easy proof

Another reason

Free Speech

Login Here

Register for our weekly email newsletter:

Connect tools:

Subscribe

to our RSS

Follow us

on Twitter

Most Read

10 Most Discussed

MacNN Marketplace