Apple threathens to sue somethingawefull.com about MacBook..

Post by **dmmh** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:39 pm

...Pro heat issues

lets have a laugh shall we kids?

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showth ... id=1867138

Post by **MKJ** » Thu May 04, 2006 7:41 pm

heh. lawyers.

Post by **Canis** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:17 pm

Whatever. They linked to apple's copyrighted material and apple went after them for it.

Post by **dmmh** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:22 pm

you can most likely just download the service manual from the apple site

Post by **MKJ** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:30 pm

aye, but then its *their* site
its stupid but legal.
whats really stupid about it though is that they want to sue SA, while they didnt even host it.
hence my lawyers post

Post by **Foo** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:30 pm

Canis wrote:Whatever. They linked to apple's copyrighted material and apple went after them for it.

You'd have to prove loss of revenue.

Post by **Canis** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:31 pm

Foo wrote:
Canis wrote:Whatever. They linked to apple's copyrighted material and apple went after them for it.
You'd have to prove loss of revenue.

For copyright? I think its just the unauthorized replication of the material, no?

Post by **Foo** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:36 pm

Canis wrote:
Foo wrote:
Canis wrote:Whatever. They linked to apple's copyrighted material and apple went after them for it.
You'd have to prove loss of revenue.
For copyright? I think its just the unauthorized replication of the material, no?

Am I thinking of patents?

Post by **Canis** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:38 pm

I'm no expert in this stuff, but I've seen cases where copyright is nit-picked to death over just the material, such as all the plagarism concerns in education, etc.

Post by **MKJ** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:39 pm

nah the point is that if apple decides to change the service manual, those hosted elsewhere wont be changed (obviously). and if someone downloads it from an unauthorized source and fucks up their macbook because theyve got an outdated version, apple gets the blame cause the file had their seal of approval on it (not to mention the official logo).

sueing is a bit rough though

Post by **4days** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:42 pm

the guy's posted a picture copied from an apple tech manual. *that*is something they'd be within their rights to piss and moan about.

but there aren't really any laws about linking to stuff as yet, that's one reason why the torrent/p2p cases are such a big deal. if they were linking to something that incited racial or religious hatred and the poster and the site were in the right countries - then, it could be an issue.

apple should be shouting at the place the files are hosted, not sa.

Post by **Dek** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:43 pm

it doesn't matter if they aren't hosting it, they are linking directly to apple, not hosting the file.. linking to websites have lost in the courts

Post by **MKJ** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:46 pm

Dek wrote: they are linking directly to apple,

nope, some dude hosted it here

.. now q3w will be sued

Post by **R00k** » Thu May 04, 2006 8:58 pm

They are suing for the "use or distribution" of the service manual.

In which case, they would have to sue the person(s) who actually hosted it. Wouldn't they?

Post by **dmmh** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:04 pm

yes they would

aside of that...in Germany recently a site owner was held responsible for the contents of the forums posts. He was sued by a company with regards to the content posted by one of the bulletin boards' members. On similar cases, previously, the charges were always dropped, but this was the first suit that was different, making for an interesting precedent.

So he really has to be careful when he says he can not be held responsible for the stuff his users say.

Made me a bit scared about the future of my forums when I read that

Post by **Canis** » Thu May 04, 2006 9:05 pm

I guess the site is involved in that it should be monitoring such activities, and working to actively remove the content. Apple's letter was a warning of legal action, so if the site doesnt comply then logically it can be deemed at least partly accountable for the infringement.

Post by **seremtan** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:33 pm

so, this is a thread about a thread on another forum which itself is a thread about an earlier thread on that forum

Post by **Canis** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:35 pm

Boggles the mind, doesnt it. I'd say a brainless actor isnt the best image-response for a mind-boggling concept.

Post by **AmIdYfReAk** » Thu May 04, 2006 10:49 pm

i like the temp drop...

Post by **mjrpes** » Fri May 05, 2006 2:03 am

MKJ wrote:
Dek wrote: they are linking directly to apple,
nope, some dude hosted it here

.. now q3w will be sued

I am quoting the illegal. I feel so dirty.

Post by **Doombrain** » Fri May 05, 2006 10:56 am

Foo wrote:
Canis wrote:
Foo wrote: You'd have to prove loss of revenue.
For copyright? I think its just the unauthorized replication of the material, no?
Am I thinking of patents?

Grow up. It’s brand misrepresentation. Companies take there brand very seriously.

Post by **Doombrain** » Fri May 05, 2006 10:57 am

I'd like to hear from Law on this issue.

Post by **mad** » Fri May 05, 2006 11:43 am

anyone got a macbook pro and is it really that hot?

i was thinking about getting a 17" one

Post by **Doombrain** » Fri May 05, 2006 12:42 pm

they do get very warm

Post by **mad** » Fri May 05, 2006 1:01 pm

ghetto

gotta be stupid to roast your balls with it though so im not worried