3 ms·

> How exactly would Apple have "disabled" Audio Hijack Pro in 2005? Would the courts have cared about the technical details? Is "That is currently impossible"

by msla 4y ago

> How exactly would Apple have "disabled" Audio Hijack Pro in 2005? Would the courts have cared about the technical details? Is "That is currently impossible" ever a reason to not do something a court orders you to do?

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
> Would the courts have cared about the technical details? It is unlikely that a court would have done anything; we had that court case in the form of VCRs, and sanity prevailed. (IANAL, but the court case that set precedent for "it's not illegal if it has substantial legitimate uses, even if it also allows copyright infringement" seems applicable)