Mar 07
Here’s the letter you all asked for. I just want to clear up some things that I’ve been reading in the comments. MacShrine has been operational since 2003 (so nearly 3 years now) and we’ve had 11 exclusives and 2 DCMAs already. We honestly couldn’t care less for “hits” since we don’t earn anything from this site. Take everything as you want, why would we bother faking something like this?
Update: We can’t believe some of the comments that have been posted. What would we gain from “faking” something like this? On the comments front, special shout out to number 4 (nearly 3 years isn’t established?…) and number 5 (your calling us sad…).
Letter removed.
March 7th, 2006 at 9:16 am
stinky Apple lawyers !
March 7th, 2006 at 11:14 am
This could be a smart trick into letting people believe the shots were real. This writing does not sound at all like the average legal pressure Apple usually issues.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Calm down Apple. As a recent ditcher of all things Microsoft Windows based. I was a little sad to see that Apple do not allow people to imagine what the next Ipod should look like. Surely it is in there interest to view these sites and gain and idea of what ist loyal followers expect from them. I say Apple should spend less on Lawyers and more on Leopard ensuring that Mac users dont switch to Vista at the end of the year. Other than that I love Apple Macs now.
March 7th, 2006 at 11:58 am
Everyone remember the iWalk?
That’s exactly how SpyMac came out of nowhere to become the site it is today. I don’t know if if it was ever determined if created the images/videos to get the hits, but the iWalk never materialized and all of these images/videos were coming from their site. Why would someone pick a small completely unknown site to release fake images?
Don’t know, but if I was starting my web biz and wanted to make a splash so that people would remember my URL, this is one sure fire way to do it. There’s no denying that SpyMac would NOT exist were it not for that.
March 7th, 2006 at 12:35 pm
I strongly doubt the authenticity of this letter:
1) The sentence “I swear, unter penalty of …” does not make a lot of sense when used by the copyright owner or a lawyer. First of all, if you are the copyright owner, why should you swear that you are authorized to act “on behalf of” him? Second problem, if you’re a lawyer acting on behalf of your client, you usually state that in the very first sentence which will read like this: “Dear XY: We represent Apple Computer, Inc. (”Apple”) with respect to its intellectual property matters.” The sentence in question can be found, however, via google. It is a part of a standard template used to report copyright issues to website owners.
2) The sentence “Apple has a good-faith belief that the use of the Material is not authorized by Apple, its agent, or the law.” is absolutely ridiculous. So Apple is in good faith (bona fide) that it has not authorized the use of the material? Really, if this was Apple, they’d simply state that they haven’t. And if it were a lawyer he’d write that his client hasn’t. Once more, this is part of said template … Additionally, why is the “agent” included? Doesn’t Apple know what its “agents” allow people to do? (Makes sense only if you were to report a copyright issue to website owners.)
3) So the signee writes about “unauthorized shots purporting to be of unreleased Apple hardware, iPod AV (”the Material”)” and “Apple’s exclusive copyrights in the iPod AV hardware”. Whoups. So he explicitly states the name of the mysterious yet-to-be-released product. Damnit. Is he gonna have to face a Cease-And-Desist-letter from Apple now?
4) “The undersigned, authorized to act on Apple’s behalf, states that (…) Apple is believed to be the exclusive owner of the copyrights”. Gosh! So Apple is *believed* to be the copyright owner? So we write this merry little letter and simply assume Apple could be the copyright owner? Honestly, would Apple write such bullshit? Would Apple’s lawyers do?
5) And go on reading the next paragraph of this letter. So first of all, the signee states that he believes Apple to be the copyright owner. But on second thought, that’s obviously not enough, so he changes his mind - and goes on swearing that all the information written above is accurate. Where’s the point?
March 7th, 2006 at 12:40 pm
[…] Ich fragt euch sicherlich wie ich: Ist das echt? Nunja… Apple geht gegen MacShrine vor nach dem Sie Bilder (1, 2 ) eines IPod AV (IPod 6G) veröffentlichten. Apple bestätigt in seinem Schreiben an MacShrine nicht die echtheit der Bilder, aber Taten (gerichtliches Vorgehen) sprechen auch hier, mehr als Worte. Ähnliche Artikel: […]
March 7th, 2006 at 2:29 pm
Andrew ,
It’s OK for people to imagine what the next big technology is, but it’s not fair to a business for projecting one’s imagination ( using Photoshop ) onto their brand or products.
These false info will not bring in more brand royalty, but end up creating hug disappointment to the public and further damaging the business.
I think Apple has all the rights to control the thread to its interest.
March 7th, 2006 at 8:23 pm
@ Andrew,
No Mac user I’ve ever met would even consider switching to… (ugh) Windows.
March 8th, 2006 at 1:12 am
@Nick: The “I swear clause” is standard legal language, you dope. The “I have a good faith belief” clause is ALSO standard legal language. All the rest you’re doubting is also standard legal language. You obviously have not seen many DCMA letters.
http://www.chillingeffects.org/keyword.cgi?KeywordID=2
I’m not saying this is real. If this letter turns out to be fake, than **** MacShrine, but the legal wording is definitely standard, so go educate yourself instead of looking like an ass…
March 8th, 2006 at 9:03 am
@Jay: True, the “I swear clause” is standard legal language but it’s usually NOT used by lawyers or companies that write Cease-And-Desist letters. You need to differentiate between regular people writing in to complain about copyright violations (they use such templates) and copyright-holders/their lawyers. And believe me, I’ve seen a lot of letters written by lawyers in my work.
I’m not saying MacShrine faked this letter, all I’m saying is I doubt the authenticity of this letter. It may be that someone faked the sender’s address and fooled MacShrine - why not? If people have enough time to create fake pictures, why not a fake Cease-And-Desist-letter to increase one’s credibility? Personally (just my 2c), I wouldn’t put my money on the latter, though.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:51 am
Everyone is missing the point - anyone can type ANYTHING on a web page. Personally, I believe this is an iHoax. I will continue to believe this is an iHoax until such time as the letter is scanned and posted 100% intact with no redaction. Then, we can all contact the attorney who allegedly wrote the letter to verify the authenticity.
Lacking that proof, it is an iHoax.
March 8th, 2006 at 11:57 am
[…] MacShrine appears to be back on the air. Not difficult to do considering it was never “off” the air, but was a self-imposed exile of sorts to give people reason to believe Apple had forced them off. Now, MacShrine claims to have been served a DCMA notice. They do not present a scan of the letter, rather they typed in the contents of the alleged letter. […]
March 9th, 2006 at 6:12 am
“[…] Ich fragt euch sicherlich wie ich: Ist das echt? Nunja… Apple geht gegen MacShrine vor nach dem Sie Bilder (1, 2 ) eines IPod AV (IPod 6G) veröffentlichten. Apple bestätigt in seinem Schreiben an MacShrine nicht die echtheit der Bilder, aber Taten (gerichtliches Vorgehen) sprechen auch hier, mehr als Worte. Ähnliche Artikel: […]”
You tell ‘em STE7130!
This is exactly what I was thinking… in German… which I do alot… even though i don’t understand it.
Odd, I know.
February 6th, 2007 at 2:58 am
Where did you find it? Interesting read
July 28th, 2007 at 9:48 pm
[…] there was a questionable claim by MacShrine that fake iPod AV shots have been removed by a “DMCA request” from […]
March 23rd, 2008 at 3:54 am
Hello everybody, my name is Damion, and I’m glad to join your conmunity,
and wish to assit as far as possible.