Technology Review: Blogs: TR Editors' blog: Apple's Flawed Stance on Information

About Us

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Add RSS Feed

Apple's Flawed Stance on Information

The computer company's legal standoff with bloggers may morph into more than just a large legal headache.

Friday, April 21, 2006

By Brad King

A few months back, I received more than a few responses to a blog post I wrote stating my belief that Steve Jobs' ambitions for entertainment glory would supersede his company's desire to protect consumer rights (see "Apple -- A Tragic Love Story"). While I'm not entirely a glutton for punishment (I don't think), it's hard for me not to lump Apple's two-year legal battle with fan sites and bloggers into the same category as the DRM (digital rights management) debate.

After all, isn't restricting consumer uses with DRM very similar to restricting the flow of information by claiming those who post in online-only venues shouldn't receive the same legal protections as traditional print (and one would assume, television and radio) journalists? I think they have to be considered part of the same discussion -- who controls how information is distributed -- even if from the top-level view, the type of content and manner of restrictions are different.

My former Wired News colleague and current News.com reporter Declan McCullagh has written a two stories -- here and here -- about the ongoing legal wrangling, which began in 2004.

From McCullagh's "Apple argues for blogger records":

In the lawsuit, filed in late 2004, Apple is not suing the Mac news sites directly, but instead has focused on still-unnamed "John Doe" defendants. The subpoena has been sent to Nfox.com, PowerPage's e-mail provider, which says it will comply if legally permitted.

In a separate case, Apple directly sued another enthusiast site, Think Secret, alleging that it infringed on Apple's trade secrets in soliciting inside information.

I will say this, in defense on Apple on this particular issue. It's unclear to journalists exactly where blogs fall in the realm of freedom of the press protections. I've had numerous, and spirited, debates with industry friends who swear up and down that blogs are not journalism, although when you begin to stick them on details, their arguments are oftentimes less sure. However, the fact that we can't agree on the issue surely makes it okay for Apple to pursue the issue in court.

In fact, it would be silly for me to argue otherwise. However, it would also be silly for me to ignore the fact that this type of Mac-Think -- that the company should be the decider of how information is used -- is what concerns me the most.

And if we play the blog debate out a bit, say, into the realm of podcasts, a place where many bloggers are going, Apple's stance gets even trickier. Here is a hypothetical:

While at a conference, a blogger, in the course of reporting on something Apple related, comes across a snippet of information on a not-yet-released product. Having a very cool blog, complete with podcast functionality that can be accessed through Apple's iTunes' podcasting section, this blogger records a three-minute segment. Let's go a bit further, and say that the podcast was recorded using Apple hardware and software.

Three questions spring to mind:

1) Now, in this case Apple is both the technology provider and distributor for information about its own company, information that it decides shouldn't be made public. What is their stance?

2) If they provide the technology and distribution network to podcast -- and have built a hardware and software business around the phenomenon -- do they have the right to then oversee how everyone uses the technology and distribution network?

3) And, let's assume they do have the right to restrict the information, do they then have the obligation to police their network (as they now have proven they can do) if Microsoft calls? More importantly, can Microsoft then sue Apple -- the provider of the technology and the distribution network -- if a podcaster puts something out about another company, in this case, Microsoft?

As many will invariably point out, I'm not of any legal mind to answer these questions (although, like all of you, I have my own opinions on the matter). However, this is the slippery slope that Apple -- and the rest of us -- may soon find ourselves on if it prevails in court.

Comments

	Apple's Lawsuit Guest (Mike) on 04/22/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	This is not, I repeat NOT, a freedom of the press issue, though many try to use that as a smoke screen. Apple's issue is not with the blogs, but their sources, who BROKE THE LAW BY STEALING TRADE SECRETS. While less tangible than steal iPods, there is a tremendous value for innovative companies like Apple. Stick to the facts. These people are thieves, no different than shoplifters in a retail store and they should be prosecuted in addition to being fired. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Apple-who owns the equipment? Guest (Peggy) on 04/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	I create freelance magazine stories using equipment and services that I own. As a result, I own the copyright to anything I produce. If I wrote on my employer's computer or used company email to transfer files, then my employer could collect my freelance checks and would own my copyrights. The issue, as Mike points out, is stealing trade secrets, not what equipment is used in the process. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Not the equipment, the service... Guest (Andy Polaine) on 05/17/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	It's not about who owns the equipment though - you're completely right about that part - but about the distribution network, in this case iTunes. Apple can, presumably, remove anything they like from iTunes Podcasts, including material they don't feel is "on brand". But fortunately iTunes isn't the only place to grab a podcast and the Web remains relatively open still. Surely the iPod has always been about iTunes and the ITMS? The hardware alone wouldn't cut it. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Apple's flawed stance on MUSIC Guest (njnoecker@yahoo.com) on 04/23/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	Users of the iPod must MANAGE music for which they only own the right to LISTEN. That's the flaw. iPod is a hardware sales model, the success of which is due to the way it plays into mobility. As soon as ubiquitous streaming becomes a reality, iPod's value is diminished. Since iPod is the entire source of profits, Apple will be back to square one. Think about this: during the iPod's life, Apple's computer share has declined from about ~8% to about 2.3%. Apple is totally dependent on iPod sales for survival. iTunes is not even a breakeven business and is clearly designed to drive iPod sales. The Apple mindset and business model has always been out of alignment with open systems. They are at home scrapping proprietary rents off the marketplace in the present. All their effort goes into trying to preserve the present rents. And it always has. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	What are you on about? Guest (Shanx) on 04/24/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	QUOTE: "However, it would also be silly for me to ignore the fact that this type of Mac-Think -- that the company should be the decider of how information is used -- is what concerns me the most." Decider of how information is used? What are you on about. A company's inside secrets were revealed. Someone did wrong. Someone has to pay. Simple. Such subversive divulging of trade secrets is WRONG, and thank goodness for our society to leave some shreds of privilege for companies to earn their keep. Don't just be a pony-tailed mindless advocate for bloggers because it's oh-so-the-future. This is not about blogging. This is about a wrongful deed, that was wrong long before you or I or blogging were in the picture. Rate this comment: (Reply)

	Practical Spacewarp Design Guest (M. Mansouryar) on 04/25/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	Hi, (Sorry for not relevance, but it's vital to me) Probably my releasd paper about the schematic design of a practical spacewarp can be considered as a subject of a report by you! That's placed on: http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511086 For more information see below links: http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=561 http://www.americanantigravity.com/articles/455/1/Iranian-Einstein%3F http://extremetechnology.blogspot.com/2006/03/macroscopic-tranversable-spacewarp.html http://www.stardrivedevice.com/links.html I'm waiting for your reply. Best Regards M. Mansouryar www.mansouryar.com Rate this comment: (Reply)

	creative commons to the rescue Guest (alex) on 05/02/2006 at 12:00 AM
Posts: 1	This sounds like the fault of tradtional copyright. Mia Garlick, legal counsel for Creative Commons, recently described the concept behind your scenario as the "age of the conducer." A conducer is "a person who is simultaneously both content creator and content consumer." More interestingly is that she presented this concept while performing the role of the conducer, in the virtual world Second Life. See here: http://nwn.blogs.com/nwn/2006/04/creative_common.html Rate this comment: (Reply)