Notice From .Mac Security - Please Read

[Doctor Q]

They didn't consult every employee at Apple about this. The legal department probably has a standing assignment to eliminate files that violate copyrights or that contain unreleased Apple material, when such files come to Apple's attention. They probably followed a standing policy without asking an exec to think over the choices.

 

[chazmox]

When I said exec I didn't mean Jobs or one of his staff - but someone had to make the call and it probably was someone in legal - whose job often is to protect the client no matter how much it hurt them!!!

 

[Doctor Q]

I have a new theory. The legal department at Apple noticed Freg3000's file and alerted Steve Jobs, who canceled all his meetings, saying "At last, I have a chance to get my revenge on those troublesome MacRumors members!". Then he personally deleted Freg3000's file while gleefully saying to himself "This'll scare the rest of them and teach them not to discuss leaked G5 specs!"

 

[Bear]

Originally posted by Kwyjibo
If he were to put a stuffit password on the file and only give the password on another site you can probably get away with it. I've seen people host many things that shouldn't be on an iDisk and get away with it....freg's link was all over the place, i'm really not surprised at apples move...I'm not saying apple can't crack the encryption. But if I hae a file call vactionphotos.sit with a password youll probably get away with it

This only works if someone at Apple doesn't read the site that the link and password is posted to.

And as a matter of fact, every time someone posts illegal content on their .mac (or whatever service) account, it's another reason for the service to monitor for illegal content more closely.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Originally posted by chazmox
Totally agree on that... and the low-quality issue definitely could be argued...

However, I think that as an exec I'd really have to weigh the impact of this and there may be a good argument to be made to allow the commercial to stay on the .mac account.

Option 1.) Control your image to the Nth degree but come off as a hard ass ( which becomes part of your image ).

Option 2.) Turn the other way and take a little more relaxed approach.

Well here's how I see it. You interfered w/Apple's marketing plan and they deleted the video to put a stop to that interference.

Here's what I think Apple's plan was. They run the new G5 commercial enough so a lot of people see it, but they don't run it into the ground. Now, the people who didn't see the ad, or want to see it again, are going to naturally seek out Apple.com when looking for the ad. Now while they are at Apple.com Apple is hoping they'll spend some time on the site and hopefully purchase something (or at least learn about products that they might want to purchase in the future). I'm also sure Apple is keeping a close eye on site traffic to see if the G5 commerical creates more hits.

Now, when you, or anyone else, hosts that commerical that takes away from traffic at Apple's site. If I viewed the commercial from yer .Mac account I probably wouldn't make a specail trip to Apple.com. But if I have to go to Apple.com to view the commerical I'll probably poke around the site a bit and drool over the stuff I can't afford right now.

Also, Apple had probably planned for a rush onto Apple.com when word got around that the commerical was up, and if the video can be found else where before Apple releases it it steals Apple's thunder, if you will, and that rush to view the video probably isn't as large.

That is why I think they deleted the video from yer account.


Lethal

 

[chazmox]

Nicely done!