Apple Sics Lawyers on SomethingAwful 512
bheer writes "Apple has sent a threatening letter to SomethingAwful about a post in its forums that describes how to fix the overheating in some MacBook Pros by applying thermal paste properly, according to a post on Gizmodo. The post includes a brief excerpt from Apple's Service Source Manual which Apple wants removed. Gizmodo continues: 'the real problem [is] that the image shows the extremely sloppy manufacturing process that is causing the MacBook Pro to run at temperatures as high as a 95 degrees Celcius under full load.'"
Karma whore (Score:5, Informative)
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?s
Lowtax's response:
http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?t
Posted anonymously to avoid accusations of karma whoring
End of thread (Score:5, Informative)
Apple is acting like Apple always does... like an asshole. They are caught out in a fairly major QA problem and trying to lawyer their way around it. Same as every other large company. Mac fanbois will of course totally defend their noble defense of their 'intellectual property' even though this case is a textbook example of fair use. The fanbois will also 'like totally defend the quality of Apple hardware against that Dell crap.' And while they have cause for that in general it will stink of slavish devotion because of just how busted Apple is on this case.
That 'bout cover everything?
sounds like a job for... (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.somethingawful.com/legal/ [somethingawful.com]
Re:End of thread (Score:2, Informative)
You preemptive ad hominem aside, Apple is not trying to delete the thread, just remove an image from one of their service manuals. How is posting sections of a service manual fair use? Service providers and others who are given access to those manuals sign an agreement that they will not do the very thing that was done.
The problem is... (Score:5, Informative)
Fair Use (Score:5, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use#Fair_use_un
I'm not really sure how to address your second point. It's either irrelevant, or Apple should be claiming SA divulged Trade Secrets.
Link with Pic (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.applerepairmanuals.com/ [applerepairmanuals.com]
(I'm not a Mac person, so I don't know.)
But I agree with the GP, offering snippets of anything isn't copyright infringement, newspapers, critics and reviewers have long offered small sections of movies, articles for discussion purposes. Educators also rely on this (quoting) to provide a piece of relevant information to their students.
There are boundaries to this, but a "snippet" isn't it.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Site Temporarily Unavailable
We apologize for the inconvenience. Please contact the webmaster/ tech support immediately to have them rectify this.
error id: "bad_httpd_conf"
I think that says a lot right there.
Re:mmm lets see here.. (Score:3, Informative)
Unauthorized reprint of at most a single page from a manual.
A take down notice due to valid infringement?
17 U.S.C. 107 [cornell.edu]
Please discuss with reference to your legal education and bar admissions.
Re:Take your own picture (Score:2, Informative)
I believe he's talking about taking a picture of the inside of your own Mac and using that instead of the picture from the manual.
Re:Actually... (Score:5, Informative)
Astroturf much?
Re:Wow (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Thermal paste (Score:2, Informative)
With the amount of screws being used to secure down the logic board, and the closeness of the bolts to the chips, there is zero chance of the layer of thermal compound being too thick and causing overheating. (btw, it's nonconductive so it really doesn' t matter if it oozes around a little)
Re:I've lost all respect for Apple. (Score:1, Informative)
And now, they're not suing SomethingAwful, it's a fairly standard C&D notice.
Now, I'm not saying what Apple is doing is right (far from it), and it's certainly justifiable to believe that their behaviour merits avoiding their products. But if you include actual, you know, facts in your rants, you might convince more people.
Have they? (Score:3, Informative)
Have they? [andrewescobar.com]
Re:fair use (Score:5, Informative)
As Linuxmop pointed out below, the entire manual is here (and now it's on my hard drive). If it was a trade secret, it isn't any more.
http://www.repairyourmac.com/macbook-pro.pdf [repairyourmac.com]
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually no, Asustek is contracted to make the consumer notebooks. The high end varieties are made by Quanta.
Actually, no (Score:5, Informative)
Thermal grease is ONLY to smooth out imperfections in the surface. While it has reasonable temperature conductivity properties, it's still a lot worse than a straight metal-to-metal connection, partially due to the lack of electrical conductivity (and therefore, lower overall metal density). When spread appropriately, you should still see the surface of the thing you are coating, along with spots of the grease where the original topography fell below the base surface line (however slightly). Coat both surfaces like this, and you're golden.
Really, what you want is a tiny, tiny drop spread around by a squeegee-like straight edge, like a plastic credit card. Put a little too much on, and your temperatures will rise. Put as much on as it appears in the picture, and your temperatures will be through the roof.
It's Fair Use, for Christ's Sake! (Score:3, Informative)
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include--
(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;
(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.
The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.
---
Do I really need to walk Apple through the factors to prove to them that this is fair use? It's pretty damn clear! Ok, fine, I'll do it anyway.
Preamble) Seems to me it qualifies as criticism, comment, and teaching.
1) This isn't commercial. They aren't reselling your manual. This is an "educational purpose." Get over yourselves.
2) It's a technical manual. There are two types of copyrighted works: 1) factual and 2) creative. This is in the first category. That means less protection for you, Apple.
3) It's only one little picture. The amount is minimal.
4) There is no effect. People still have to buy the manual if they want the manual.
Hey, SomethingAwful wins on all four elements! STFU Apple.
*I am not a lawyer. But I can read a statute.
Re:Actually... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Thermal grease info? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Why is this news? (Score:5, Informative)
From the opinion of Justice Story in Folsom v. Marsh, as reported in Wikipedia's Fair Use entry [wikipedia.org]:In other words, what this judgment states is that a work is considered fair use if its intent is to provide commentary or criticism. In the case of the Apple service manual, it is clearly a critique of Apple's mishandling of the processor in the first place. The author of the post is clearly making the logical case that Apple is doing a poor job by posting the damning evidence of the service manual, and making the logical case that had they not screwed it up in the first place, you wouldn't have had to repair the thermal paste. I don't know what could be more of a case of valid critique than this.
As such, it seems pretty obvious to me that Apple is trying to prevent the criticism of whatever shoddy computer building practices it might have, rather than trying to protect its copyright.
IANALBIKHTSWRIFOMFF. (I am not a lawyer but I know how to see what's right in front of my fucking face)
Re:fair use (Score:4, Informative)
Really? Where? I see it neither in TFA, nor in the manual linked to in this /. comment [slashdot.org].
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Too much thermal goo is one of the more common assembly errors I've seen, all because of a misunderstanding of its purpose. Too many people think, "the more, the better" and it's just not so. The best thermal bond is metal to metal, but there are gaps between the metal surfaces that don't conduct well if they are filled with air, so we want to fill them with something more conductive. If the layer of thermal compound is so thick that it pushes apart the metal surfaces, it defeats its purpose.
Re:Why is this news? (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, please site the laws that were broken. A NDA is not a law binding document. By breaking it, you are only breaking a contractual agreement with said party. SomethingAweful, as many have noted, only linked to the document in question. The "offending" document was hosted from an outside site. Linking is not punishable (see Microsoft vs. Ticketmaster) or else companies like Google would be out of business. Hell, I'm not even a lawyer and I know more about U.S. law than you do. Thats pretty bad.
Jesus fucking christ I hope morons like you arnt allowed to vote in the US. People like you are the reason Bush won.
It's very un-American to tell people to not vote. Besides getting a basic understanding of the laws in this country, maybe you should learn a little about a little thing known as democracy.
Re:It's Fair Use, for Christ's Sake! (Score:3, Informative)
106 lists the things that the owner of a copyright has the right to do (lists the exclusive rights). 106A additionally adds that if the copyrighted thing is a painting / photgraph (a "work of visual art") then the author can insist that his name be attached to the painting / photograph when copies are made.
107, as I quoted earlier, say that even though you have those exclusive rights, there are exceptions for "fair use." So they arn't all that "exclusive" I guess. Either that, or you can consider it a fraction that the copyright owner doesn't get to have and is reserved to the public from day one.
---
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106 - Exclusive rights in copyrighted works
Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights to do and to authorize any of the following:
(1) to reproduce the copyrighted work in copies or phonorecords;
(2) to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work;
(3) to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending;
(4) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and motion pictures and other audiovisual works, to perform the copyrighted work publicly;
(5) in the case of literary, musical, dramatic, and choreographic works, pantomimes, and pictorial, graphic, or sculptural works, including the individual images of a motion picture or other audiovisual work, to display the copyrighted work publicly; and
(6) in the case of sound recordings, to perform the copyrighted work publicly by means of a digital audio transmission.
--
I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advice.
17 USC 106A - Rights of certain authors to attribution and integrity
(a) Rights of Attribution and Integrity.-- Subject to section 107 and independent of the exclusive rights provided in section 106, the author of a work of visual art--
(1) shall have the right--
(A) to claim authorship of that work, and
(B) to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of any work of visual art which he or she did not create;
(2) shall have the right to prevent the use of his or her name as the author of the work of visual art in the event of a distortion, mutilation, or other modification of the work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation; and
(3) subject to the limitations set forth in section 113 (d), shall have the right--
(A) to prevent any intentional distortion, mutilation, or other modification of that work which would be prejudicial to his or her honor or reputation, and any intentional distortion, mutilation, or modification of that work is a violation of that right, and
(B) to prevent any destruction of a work of recognized stature, and any intentional or grossly negligent destruction of that work is a violation of that right.
(b) Scope and Exercise of Rights.-- Only the author of a work of visual art has the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work, whether or not the author is the copyright owner. The authors of a joint work of visual art are coowners of the rights conferred by subsection (a) in that work.
(c) Exceptions.--
(1) The modification of a work of visual art which is a result of the passage of time or the inherent nature of the materials is not a distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3)(A).
(2) The modification of a work of visual art which is the result of conservation, or of the public presentation, including lighting and placement, of the work is not a destruction, distortion, mutilation, or other modification described in subsection (a)(3) unless the modification is caused by gross negligence.
(3) The rights described in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall not apply to any reproduction, depiction, port
Not just one page (Score:5, Informative)
I have mod points, but I couldn't find anyone pointing this out to mod up. The post [somethingawful.com] includes a link to the entire service manual. Apple's complaint is NOT about the single page showing the thermal grease, it's about the posting of a PDF of their copyrighted service manual in its entirety. Now, they're still threatening the wrong person, since the file is hosted somewhere else, but there is real infringement going on.
Comment removed (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Actually... (Score:3, Informative)
In any case, production is highly automated and managed by an ERP system. It's not like Steve Jobs could just walk down to the manufacturing floor and tell them what to do. That will get your ISO9001 certification revoked in a hurry. If you want even a minor change, you have to issue an ECO and do all sorts of paperwork. Besides, there is nothing that can be changed on the assembly line. By that time, the boards have been manufactured, the parts and mechanical assemblies procured, and the tooling set up. The only benefit to doing manufacturing in-house is that you have more control over when things get built. Not an issue when you are ordering hundreds of thousands of units.