We just got an email from Apple regarding a YouTube video reposted on CrunchGear:
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-expose-works-with-spaces-in-mac-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.comDMCA 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.
This message and any attached documents contain information from the law firm of O’Melveny & Myers LLP that may be confidential and/or privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
Ian, it a YouTube video. That’s at www.youtube.com. Get them to take it down if it’s a violation of your IP and it will stop showing at crunchgear and the other sites.
And Ian, when you are done, please take the time to send your client, Apple, a similar email for posting basically the same material on their own site.
That’s a pretty amazing letter. I’m floored that they’d send it to you, rather than You Tube. Your response is brilliant.
Thanks for posting this. There seems to be a perception that Apple are the “good guys.”
Well, yeah, but there are fewer billable hours if they just sent one letter to Youtube…
That is way too funny.
Well, as a friend pointed out you can go to http://www.apple.com/macosx/leopard/spaces.html and see it.
I love how they lead off with “NOT FOR POSTING”. Yeah, that’s going to stop a blogger from putting a C&D Letter online. Good call O’Melveny & Myers LLP.
WTF ?? This shows us how the legalese works.. stupid stupid stuipd !!
“Not For Posting” ? Now that’s an idea for a site. Expect many more emails such as this from legal offices.
Face it Mike, you’re a journalist. That’s a classic move of a journalist. Well done, and welcome to our world!
These sort of issues are almost impossible to explain to lawyers outside of the Web 2.0 space (i.e. lawyers like you). We hosted a blog for a client who used elfurl.com to shorten a link to a competitors website and then included that short link in a blog post. I got a call from a lawyer who felt as though it was a violation of copyright to link to his client’s website and it was deceptive trade practice for our service to “obscure” the destination URL.
The lawyer never understood what a URL shortner was and kept suggesting that he was going to file a class action against us (there are something like 500,000 elfurls currworking) on behalf of all the sites our shortened links pointed to. I was also confused why it was illegal to link to someone’s website. Anyway, he explained that he was a lawyer and understood the law and I did not. Anyway, funny response…
Mike you are such a bitch with little concern for others thoughts or rights.
Research some fair trade and trademark law. You might indeed be liable, even though a purportedly non-kosher video is hosted elsewhere, particularly if you have notice.
And why all the web 2.0 holier-than-thou. They asked you not to post the letter — can you not even accept that simple request? How dare you post the letter and the guys name and address? The mark of true arrogance — i hope you get taken down for this.
I’m not going to defend Apple’s petty tactics of trying to keep demos of their OS for their sole dissemination, but I do think the “it’s not us, it’s YouTube” argument is a bit thin.
When using an [embed] or [object] tag to get video into a web page, it hardly matters if it’s a QuickTime movie served by a local server or a Flash video served by YouTube from San Mateo. It is still appearing in the page in the same way.
[embed] is more than a “link” – it is a specific decision to include content in a web page. Effectively the lawyer asked to have the [embed] tag removed.
It may be a dumb decision (by Apple) but I don’t think it represents a misunderstanding of the technology.
BTW, I’ve been calling the tags [embed] and [object] because I’m not sure if or will show up in the comments system. We’ll see.
Every Crunch site’s posts look hilarious in netnewswire (it tracks changes to posts). So when Mike deletes the guy’s contact info and replaces it with Xs, I see the post in netnewswire with all the contact info still there but crossed out in red and the new stuff in green. Out of all the feeds I subscribe to (over 65) the Crunch site’s have the highest incident’s of rewording of strongly worded posts, edits to information, or deletion of interesting information.
OK, so I use apostrophes where I don’t need them…
Mike,
This is why chosing Apple as a computer is a bad idea. I see quite a few posts from you lamenting the lack of software created by Google, etc. for OS X. Apple is way more proprietary and lawsuit crazy than Microsoft. Not that I am promoting MS, I don’t like them much either. Not trying to be a stick in the mud either, but Look At These Guys.
Wow, someone already registered notforposting.com today. Gotta move fast, I guess.
Dvorak’s gonna love this…
IANAL but I’m pretty sure the copyright doesn’t apply to the screenshot. Also the EULA agreement isn’t transitive so just because the person who captured the video signed it doesn’t mean you signed it as well.
I agree that just because the file was hosted on YouTube it doesn’t mean you shouldn’t take the link down. As they said, the stuff being shown is under NDAs and such strict agreements.
Look at what happened to Napster. They never held the MP3s on their servers, but they did provide links to them. Which is what you’re doing.
“And Ian, when you are done, please take the time to send your client, Apple, a similar email for posting basically the same material on their own site.”
Did I not read this right or is this a joke? Asking them to send Apple a letter because Apple are posting similar stuff on Apple’s site of Apple’s upcoming operating system?
darnit! someone already registered notforposting.com yesterday!
You don’t see Microsoft doing this sort of thing.
NastyGram? It actually seems pretty polite to me.
This sort of activity will make people hate Apple as much as they already hate Microsoft.
The response to Apple should have said, “I am not the intended recipient of this letter, since the video on question was posted on youtube, therefore I followed the lawyer’s guidance at the bottom and I did NOT read this letter.”
Repression and the defenders of it despite it’s ill placed aim… I love it. Angst, pseudo-intellectuals, brow beating, name calling, chest pounding.
All this thanks to a Digg article. It just doesn’t get any better than this. O.o
Perhaps there will be a sequel… “Snake in the Apple tree” perhaps? …I digress.
Please feel free too eat out of my butt.
Ian is retarded. Shut your mouth and go away. I love APPLE computers, but lawyers are worthless. Please cease and desist being retarded and an ass or you will violate DMCA Article 1 billion.2.3 that states that you fail at life.
Thank you.
Freedom of spech on the internet, buddies. If Mike WANTS to post, he has the RIGHT to post.
Holy shit! Youtube hacking into random blogs and posting copyright infinging material on them? This has to be stopped!
Here is the contact information for this wonderful person. I encourage everyone to give him a call and let him know how much we appreciate his pleasant attitude. Then I encourage everyone to contact Apple and let them know how much we appreciate this little sh*t.
His phone number is (415) 984-8783 and his email address is iramage@omm.com. This information was taken from the companies website http://www.omm.com.
Then contact Apple via Planetfeedback (http://www.planetfeedback.com/) and let them know what your thinking. I’ll say this, I was considering getting a Mac. Still am, but this kind of behavior definately gets my attention.
What would be really funny is if Apple and YouTube were both clients of O’Melveny! “I’ll have my lawyers talk to your lawyers [down the hall].”
“And Ian, when you are done, please take the time to send your client, Apple, a similar email for posting basically the same material on their own site.”
Dude . . . did you not read the C&D? Do you understand nothing of the law? Apple are the copyright holders to Apple’s software, thus they can authorize their own use of it.
I thought your response was decent until I read that bit of idiocy.
Of course, I think most IP laws are illogical, ridiculous, and unfair–and personally, I think you SHOULD be able to link to this video and even host it yourself–but that doesn’t mean that the law says you can, and you are obviously in the wrong in a few ways here.
That’s classic Apple for you. I swear, when will companies learn that any buzz (good, bad or ugly) is good buzz. Geez.
Keep up the good work guys!
that’s not bad. it makes perfect sense for the lawyer to contact you regarding the matter. the video is technically apple’s property and they have the right to protect it. not only that, but the person who originally posted the video breached the contract they agreed to in order to get a copy of the software.
Leave it to the anti-apple/microsoft zealots to turn an email into a flamer attack against Apple. Boohoo…
I agree with Ryan, it seems pretty polite but I think the email was directed at the wrong person. It’s definitely not a nastygram.
Once again this just proves that I need to quit my programming job and become a tech laywer troll. I could write letters like this all day and bill Apple, MS or any other company $1000 a pop. $500k a year sending out form email letters.
I have to agree with Ryan. The letter seems polite and reasonable to me. Looks like the title was crafted to get dugg, and it certainly worked.
For all you know, they’re already working on getting YouTube to stop hosting the videos, but in the meantime, are asking blogs to stop linking to ‘em. All I’m saying is I don’t quite see what was wrong with the letter. It’s their OS, and they don’t want *you* showing it. Regardless of whether or not you’re just linking to YouTube.
“And Ian, when you are done, please take the time to send your client, Apple, a similar email for posting basically the same material on their own site.”
Um, yea. They own it. They can do whatever they want with it. That’s sort of how intellectual property works. I believe the point of the rather polite letter was that you do not own that content and you are displaying it on your site.
The fact that it’s an embedded video from another site is irrelevant. You have actively included it in yours and therefore are potentially liable until you cease to include it. It’s just a tad disengenuous to go to the effort of embedding it and then claim “Oh, but it’s not mine so you can’t hassle me about it.”
You guys are missing the point. The fact that it is copyrighted answers all of your questions. First of all, what proof is there that they aren’t going to be contacting YouTube? Secondly, no, don’t tell him to send the same email to Apple for posting the same video on their site. It’s their material, their site, they have every right to choose where to use it. And that’s just it, since you broke the copyright law, they have everyright to send you a C&D. They are probably sending everyone one. So quit whining, it’s not your material, so don’t post it.
Just a couple of points for the illiterate/arrogant (these may not me mutually exclusive):
‘Not for posting’ has more than one meaning. As it’s been pointed out that most lawyers aren’t hip to technology, the term ‘not for posting’ in combination with ‘via email’ may also indicate that it isn’t intended to go.. via postal mail.
Even if the law firm did actually mean not for posting publically, it’s a polite request at best, and completely non-binding. There’s a clause at the bottom of the letter:
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not read, copy, distribute, or use this information. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify the sender immediately by reply e-mail and then delete this message.
The intended recipient is not bound by these terms. Also, as the intended recipient, the contents of the letter are now ‘his’.
Also, until sealed for whatever reason, most court proceedings are public. There’s no information included in the original letter that cannot be found with a little bit of work to lookup the information.
Whatever you think of Apple’s reasons, they do have a right to control the dissemination of information regarding their unreleased platform. They run a polished media campaign that’s mostly respectable, and the as mentioned in the letter, the video in question indicates that someone violated the terms of a developer agreement. As a publically held company, Apple is also *obligated* to it’s shareholders to protect and enforce their copyright and contractual agreements. To *not* take this kind of action opens them up to shareholder suits, for not engaging in due diligence to protect the value of their investment.
Food for thought.
I find it somewhat unlikely that a video of a screenshot can be copyrighted by apple, as they didn’t produce the video/screenshot, and thereby hold any rights over it’s content.
So Diego, the Napster comparison is rather weak, as clearly the napster content was copyrighted.
The fact that someone breached their non-disclosure agreement doesn’t make the rest of the world in breach of contract, though I’m sure a few bullying emails is worth a crack on Apple’s part, as it’d get laughed out of most courts
Good stuff. Another show of ‘how big corporate folks like to step on the little guy’ example. Good luck with this!
“If you are represented by counsel, please provide me with the identity of that counsel.”
It seems a little Gestapo like, to me.
Maybe “GestapoGram” would be a more adequate designation.
Your right you don’t see M$ do this sort of thing because anyone can DL Vista Beta and run it, Unlike Apple, who keeps their next “major build”
Read the damn letter you halfwits:
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.
Apple had nothing to do with this letter being sent, aside from hiring a not so web savvy lawyer.
M$ is too busy ripping you off in the price of software to bother with lawyers.
Right on, Diego. I bet Michael Arrington is ashamed of himself right now.
Might one not think that “Not For Posting” might be a phrase used in the Old West and said specifically to post hole diggers (cf. http://www.hooverfence.com/tools/post-hole-digger.htm)? The lawyer should first define “Posting” so folks can fully understand what is not to be done. Also, “Whom It May Concern” is non-specific and so “may be confidential” (or may not be confidential?) MAY be darn vague to the point that it MAY be meaningless.
Word to lawyers: “A priori specificity is a virtue”.
(N.B. I am not playing with words here. I am quite serious about the vagueness of the alleged e-mail. I have no idea if the e-mail is really from a lawyer or not. Where’s the proof?)
Well Apple is just like Microsoft. There is hardly any difference. They are not number 1 or the situation woudl have been reveresed.
I am very confused as to why everyone is upset with Apple over this C & D letter…It seems as if they are likely in the right leagally, and Ian is obviously not meeting him in court tommorow, it is simply a rather pointed request that they cease showing a most likely illegaly produced film…Did this letter cause some horribly undue work to CrunchGear? It simply informed him said video should not be disseminated, and asked him to remove it…rather politley (well being legal-ese) at that!
I bet Ian understood perfectly well that YouTube was hosting the vode. Check out his profile on O’Melveny & Myers’s website and you find:
“Prior to practicing law, Ian worked as a telecommunications hardware engineer at Hughes Aircraft of Canada, as well as a programmer/analyst at Prologic Computer Corp. Prior to that, he interned at IBM Canada Laboratories, Transport Canada, Northern Telecom, and the SFU School of Engineering, where he researched silicon micromachining technologies in preparation for his B.A.Sc. thesis.”
I would also bet that he didn’t actually send this takedown notice; it was most likely an automatic email ala the RIAA’s recent efforts.
Wow.. a seemingly reasonable and valid I might add, request to take down the link. the childish response?” it a Youtube Video” Impressive indeed. While technically you are not hosting the video the net effect is that you are via the link. And to also post the information on the web like this re the address phone etc, is just irresponsible. I would sincerely hope that they file against you for any damages incurred for that swift move. Just another 15 yr old jackass trying to make himself look like a hero when in fact, he is just a moron. Quite pathetic.
Oh, and one more thing. To those folks complaining above that Mike posted Ian’s contact information, the discussion is made superfluous by the fact that you can go to O’Melveny & Myers’s site and find his email address, phone number, and even a picture. ;]