or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Japanese publishers censure Apple over App Store copyright violations
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Japanese publishers censure Apple over App Store copyright violations

post #1 of 43
Thread Starter 
A consortium of Japanese publishers rebuked Apple on Tuesday for approving App Store apps that violate the copyrights of several famous Japanese authors.

The Japan Book Publishers Association, the Japan Magazine Publishers Association, The Electronic Book Publishers Association of Japan, and Digital Comic Association issued a joint press release Tuesday condemning Apples distribution of infringing content as illegal, The Wall Street Journal reports. The consortium said works by well-known Japanese authors Haruki Marakami and Keigo Higashino had been illegally scanned and then distributed via the App Store.

The associations we represent believe that Apple bears grave responsibility for this problem, the statement read. According to the consortium, Apple's excuse that it is unable to check for copyrighted material during the App review process is "a wholly unconvincing explanation."

Apple's policy of removing pirated material when notified by a copyright holder mirrors Google's policy with YouTube videos. Viacom is suing Google for more than $1 billion over unauthorized copyrighted material posted to YouTube, the report noted. Google has defended itself by asserting that it obeys the law by removing offending material when notified, while Viacom argues that it should not have to monitor the site and send notices for infringing material.

The group of publishers is willing to give Apple a chance. In its press release, it asked to meet with Apple Japan to discuss how to address the problems. However, should Apple ignore the request, it will further provoke the ire of the publishers. A failure to respond will be regarded as a lack of will on your part to take measures in a sincere manner, the consortium warned.

As a foreign company facing off against local companies in the arena of digital distribution, Apple's efforts have been met with resistance. Tokyo-based conglomerate Sony inked several deals with newspapers and publishers for its e-reader content platform just prior to the iPad's launch there in May.

However, as the popularity of Apple's devices continues to grow in Japan, publishers have begun to take notice. The iPad got off to a "frenzied" start in Japan, with buyers camping out for days to purchase the device. The iPhone is dominating the Japanese smartphone market, while the iPod has seen continued success in the country.

Apple will increase the stakes for the Japan App Store early next year when it brings iAd to the country with the help of local partner The Dentsu Group.
post #2 of 43
If they're anyone other than Yukio Mishima, they don't count.
post #3 of 43
I remember when I first saw this stuff on the Apstore it was so obvious. I do not believe that the people involved in the app-review process were unaware of the copyright violation.

@Quadra

You can add Masamune Shirow to the "does count" list.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #4 of 43
The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".
post #5 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

I remember when I first saw this stuff on the Apstore it was so obvious. I do not believe that the people involved in the app-review process were unaware of the copyright violation.

How obvious was it to you?
??
And how could they have checked if the company which brings the app into AppStore has or has not the rights to distribute these books?
So, please, tell us, how did you come to conclusion, that this was some kind of violation?

Tell us, by which review process could Apple have concluded that it was a violation? Is this process a part of the current review? What makes you "believe" that Apple knew about it?
Just because you thought that is unlikely that such famous authors will appear in App Store?

Maybe you believe and assume too much?
post #6 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".

Agree with you. Apple (and YouTube) should make a requirement for a right to publish from a developer.
post #7 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".

Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

Agree with you. Apple (and YouTube) should make a requirement for a right to publish from a developer.


You both misunderstand who creates/delivers the content/merchandise. Your views are too simplistic.

And how should it work? I see, you imagine it so that apple will require from each developer a copy of patents, confirmation that they come up with original idea (and still then it is not 100% that they would not be taken to a court room by some one who holds another patent).
Tell us, how should they do it? How for example you would prove to Google that you have all rights to own and distribute the video which you are uploading?

You just criticize and say that some one should have done something, but you can't even suggest how and what they really could do.
post #8 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".

Things are different now. WalMart probably doesn't deal with small fly-by-night individuals for physical media. They're only going to deal with large distributors for that. The digital era makes copyright infringement easy to do convincingly, and makes it easy to make infringing digital media for sale. The same technology that allows an author to self-publish also allows a copyright infringer to make money from someone else's work.
post #9 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doorman. View Post

You both misunderstand who creates/delivers the content/merchandise. Your views are too simplistic.

And how should it work? I see, you imagine it so that apple will require from each developer a copy of patents, confirmation that they come up with original idea (and still then it is not 100% that they would not be taken to a court room by some one who holds another patent).
Tell us, how should they do it? How for example you would prove to Google that you have all rights to own and distribute the video which you are uploading?

You just criticize and say that some one should have done something, but you can't even suggest how and what they really could do.

I think you are being to unrealistic....
Apple is a multi BILLION dollar company. They have a staff of people to make sure this doesn't happen. Just because they(posters listed above) pointed out that this was wrong doesn't mean they have to have a better answer. Apple and all major digital retailers have staff with MBA's and a team of lawyers to make sure this does not happen. If the allegations are true then Apple is at fault here.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #10 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doorman. View Post

You both misunderstand who creates/delivers the content/merchandise. Your views are too simplistic.

And how should it work? I see, you imagine it so that apple will require from each developer a copy of patents, confirmation that they come up with original idea (and still then it is not 100% that they would not be taken to a court room by some one who holds another patent).
Tell us, how should they do it? How for example you would prove to Google that you have all rights to own and distribute the video which you are uploading?

You just criticize and say that some one should have done something, but you can't even suggest how and what they really could do.

I don't think it's to simplistic. Fair enough they are going to miss things but they should actually be making an effort. At the moment is seems like they don't bother doing anything and wait to be notified. If your the second highest valued company in the world you should be doing a bit more than waiting to be notified. It may be that if they tried to check everything for copywrite then it would cost far to much to actually make a profit. But that isn't an excuse for selling something you shouldn't.
post #11 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad View Post

I think you are being to unrealistic....
Apple is a multi BILLION dollar company. They have a staff of people to make sure this doesn't happen. Just because they(posters listed above) pointed out that this was wrong doesn't mean they have to have a better answer. Apple and all major digital retailers have staff with MBA's and a team of lawyers to make sure this does not happen. If the allegations are true then Apple is at fault here.

I think you misunderstand the scale of the problem. There are maybe hundreds of billions or even trillions of copyrighted works in play. Apple sells 10+ billion songs. If you insist that they pay for their team of lawyers to check on the copyright on every single SKU, check the authenticity of every single photo used in a book or software, they aren't going to be a billion dollar company anymore. Just check out the scale of the Library of Congress to see the scope of the problem.

I don't know how an MBA is a good choice for checking copyright violations. Running the business, yes, checking legal matters, no.
post #12 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

I don't think it's to simplistic. Fair enough they are going to miss things but they should actually be making an effort. At the moment is seems like they don't bother doing anything and wait to be notified. If your the second highest valued company in the world you should be doing a bit more than waiting to be notified. It may be that if they tried to check everything for copywrite then it would cost far to much to actually make a profit. But that isn't an excuse for selling something you shouldn't.

Sounds fair enough, but what we don't currently know is how many Apps that Apple already "catches" beforehand. Thus, we don't know if 100% of violators are "slipping through" Apple's QA process, or if it is just 1% - - and until we know that, we don't really have a good handle on how valid our criticism here may be.

IMO, for cases like this, a King Soloman -esque approach may be appropriate.

For example, given that the violation has taken place, Apple should be able to figure out a legal process (with their lawyers, Developer's agreement, etc) to basically say that the App Developer's act of IP violation has forfeited his own IP & ownership rights to the infringing App ("Stick"), whereupon its effective ownership gets turned over to the infringed-upon copyrightholders ("Carrot"). From there, the new owner can then decide if to let the App be and reap the revenue, or if to shut it down, or if reprice it, etc, etc.


-hh
post #13 of 43
This is overblown. If they report a violation which is substantiated Apple will remove them. End of story. Heck Apple are criticized all the time for removing or blocking apps so it is not as if they don't take this sort of thing seriously. Just as with the non-existent antennae issue there always those wanting to jump on any anti-Apple theme and also those with actual reasons to stoke any such fires. The issue will be resolved quickly I am sure.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
"Google doesn't sell you anything, they just sell you!"
Reply
post #14 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".



There is a big difference between the WalMart/Apple examples and YouTube.

Apple chooses which software they want to sell in the App Store. Likewise, WalMart chooses which merchandise it puts on its shelves.

YouTube and others, OTOH, do not choose what to make available. That is why the DMCA has the provisions you object to. Unlike apple choosing infringing products to put on its virtual shelves, or WalMart doing the same, in the case of Google, it is the author who puts it on the server, and not the server owner.
post #15 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".

Simplistic thinking at it's finest. If google, for example, were to try and police the millions of videos uploaded to YouTube in such a way, the service would become useless for both the publisher and the viewer, google would be spending untold additional resources to make said service useless, and people would complain to no end that google is acting like a bully and denying them their first ammendment rights by not allowing that video of a squirrel playing a tambourine to be viewed. There is a balance between fair use, free flow of information, and copyright infringement and the only way to find the balance is to let them duke it continuously. Walmart is not a suitable model to compare with these companies.
post #16 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84 View Post

I don't think it's to simplistic. Fair enough they are going to miss things but they should actually be making an effort. At the moment is seems like they don't bother doing anything and wait to be notified. If your the second highest valued company in the world you should be doing a bit more than waiting to be notified. It may be that if they tried to check everything for copywrite then it would cost far to much to actually make a profit. But that isn't an excuse for selling something you shouldn't.



Apple picks and chooses which apps Apple wants to sell in Apple's store. Therefore, Apple is 100% responsible for selling counterfeit merchandise in the App Store.

YouTube, OTOH, picks and chooses nothing. Other people pick and choose what is available on You Tube. YouTube is therefore responsible ONLY upon being notified. That is the law. It makes perfect sense.
post #17 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

There is a big difference between the WalMart/Apple examples and YouTube.

Apple chooses which software they want to sell in the App Store. Likewise, WalMart chooses which merchandise it puts on its shelves.

YouTube and others, OTOH, do not choose what to make available. That is why the DMCA has the provisions you object to. Unlike apple choosing infringing products to put on its virtual shelves, or WalMart doing the same, in the case of Google, it is the author who puts it on the server, and not the server owner.

The difference between YouTube and the apple app store is only in degree not in substance. The app store is much closer a model to youtube than it is to walmart.
post #18 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2 cents View Post

The difference between YouTube and the apple app store is only in degree not in substance. The app store is much closer a model to youtube than it is to walmart.



If what you say is true, then that is a huge problem for Apple.

If Apple wants to pick and choose, they bear the responsibility for any malfeasance they commit. If their methods are inadequate, they still bear the responsibility - that is the heart of their malfeasance.

If Apple wants to pick and choose, then they need to accept responsibility for poor choices.


Think of it this way: If AI publishes an infringing article, they bear responsibility. But if one of us users were to repost an infringing article at some random place in some obscure dead thread, AI is responsible only upon notification. That is the distinction between Apple selling counterfeit goods and Google being victimized with an infringing YouTube video.

Again: If Apple wants to pick and choose the merchandise that they sell, then they need to pick and choose legal merchandise.
post #19 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

.....If you insist that they pay for their team of lawyers to check on the copyright on every single SKU, check the authenticity of every single photo used in a book or software, they aren't going to be a billion dollar company anymore. ....

Exactly.
post #20 of 43
You people who think that this is somehow Apple's problem are dangerously and stupidly naive.

You want to know what the symptom of this idiotic ideal is? The local grade school PTO held a family fun night this last weekend. During the event they had a Santa and a photographer donate their time and equipment to take pictures with Santa for the children. The problem came up when they tried to get those photos printed at the local one-hour photo center at Wal-Mart.

Wal-Mart would not print the pictures because they could not prove that they owned the copyright. So, all of you oh so knowledgeable people. Tell us exactly how you prove that you truly own something? How does Apple determine who owns what copyrights? How do they determine who has what license deals?

If I were to write a program and include my own art, how exactly do you propose I prove that it is mine? There is no cut and dried way, at least in the US, and none that I know of in Japan either. To truly know who owns what copyright and who has what rights to use it requires a court case, it requires a burden of proof.

So, I guess that is what it comes down to. Apple needs to start taking every one of these creators to court to prove that they own the copyright to each and every piece of media submitted to the App store. Could you imagine being an artist and having to go to court every time you tried to do anything with your creation because it is the only way to prove that you own it?

I wonder who will run out of money first from this completely ridiculous idea? Apple and Google or the authors?

Doesn't sound like such a good idea any more does it?

Or perhaps you all just suppose we take the media company's word for it? I mean they have never lied. Oh wait, they lie all of the time.

So, perhaps the best thing to do is simply stick to the tried and true method of reporting any material to Apple when you find material that you think might be a violation.
post #21 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post

Doesn't sound like such a good idea any more does it?

The idea never sounded good.

Instead, Apple needs to use the tried and true methods which have been in place ever since authors started to go to publishers to get their work published and sold.

Apple is choosing works to publish and sell. If their methods are defective, then their methods need to be repaired. It is not impossible. It is SOP with every retailer of protected works.
post #22 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

The idea never sounded good.

Instead, Apple needs to use the tried and true methods which have been in place ever since authors started to go to publishers to get their work published and sold.

Apple is choosing works to publish and sell. If their methods are defective, then their methods need to be repaired. It is not impossible. It is SOP with every retailer of protected works.

I don't believe for a moment that the old "tried and true" methods work very well in the age of digital media distribution, those systems you imply are from a pre-internet age.
post #23 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't believe for a moment that the old "tried and true" methods work very well in the age of digital media distribution, those systems you imply are from a pre-internet age.



Why does the medium dictate the methods?

If a paper book gets published, methods are used to clear rights. If an electronic edition gets chosen, published and sold by apple, then why should they bear less responsibility than the guys who use paper?

If a piece of software gets published on plastic CDs, methods are used to clear rights. If Apple chooses, publishes and sells software via downloads from their App Store, then why should they bear less responsibility than the guys who sell infringing materials via plastic objects?

Please tell me why digital media distribution allows Apple to sell infringing stuff in their store?
post #24 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

If what you say is true, then that is a huge problem for Apple.

If Apple wants to pick and choose, they bear the responsibility for any malfeasance they commit. If their methods are inadequate, they still bear the responsibility - that is the heart of their malfeasance.

If Apple wants to pick and choose, then they need to accept responsibility for poor choices.


Think of it this way: If AI publishes an infringing article, they bear responsibility. But if one of us users were to repost an infringing article at some random place in some obscure dead thread, AI is responsible only upon notification. That is the distinction between Apple selling counterfeit goods and Google being victimized with an infringing YouTube video.

Again: If Apple wants to pick and choose the merchandise that they sell, then they need to pick and choose legal merchandise.

That's only your opinion and you better hope that the law never gets to that point. Checking for private API's doesn't mean you are taking responsibility for the content of the app. It's impossible for any company to ensure that a database of the size and magnitude of the app store contains nothing that violates copyrights. If companies cannot vet for quality without becoming liable to copyright lawsuits, there will simply be no quality control. The number of copyright infringing apps would increase, the number of unstable apps would increase, there'd be malware apps, etc. It's not a road you want to go down.

This would extend far beyond the app store too. Even Google does a rudimentary review of apps going into the market. Websites would be reluctant to post "best of" lists, and all legal, centralized places to get programs would no longer be safe (can't even check for viruses). The Internet run according to your values would suck. As long as Apple makes a reasonable effort to prevent copyright infringing apps from appearing on the app store they should be fine. Ultimately it's up to a judge to decide what reasonable is, but from my perspective, not knowingly approving apps that violate copyright and removing apps upon notification is reasonable. Checking every app for any possible copyright violations is not reasonable.
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #25 of 43
Uh, folks, if this is the same issue as what was reported on months ago and if this isn't just late information, then Apple is completely at fault. The works of Haruki Murakami were being illegally distributed for a while via an app or apps in the app store...in Chinese. Japanese authors are very popular in China and distributing their publications in Chinese is worth millions of dollars. This issue has been well known for quite a while now. If Apple was simply waiting for a cease and desist letter then they were effectively stealing revenue from Japanese authors and publishers. That is assuming that this isn't information that's actually a couple of months old.

To say that they can't check to see if the material isn't copywrited is rediculous...especially if it's an app that is effectively a book. Though I can see where it would be difficult to check for copywrited material in non-book apps.

Seeing as how big the publishing industry is here in Japan, it's in Apple's best interest to get on the good side of the publishers here. Sharp already did it with their Galapagos tablets. (I played with on at Bic Camera... nice size, but slow hardware and a 'is this it?' reaction makes me hope A
post #26 of 43
Uh, folks, if this is the same issue as what was reported on months ago and if this isn't just late information, then Apple is completely at fault. The works of Haruki Murakami were being illegally distributed for a while via an app or apps in the app store...in Chinese. Japanese authors are very popular in China and distributing their publications in Chinese is worth millions of dollars. This issue has been well known for quite a while now. If Apple was simply waiting for a cease and desist letter then they were effectively stealing revenue from Japanese authors and publishers. That is assuming that this isn't information that's actually a couple of months old.

To say that they can't check to see if the material isn't copywrited is rediculous...especially if it's an app that is effectively a book. Though I can see where it would be difficult to check for copywrited material in non-book apps.

Seeing as how big the publishing industry is here in Japan, it's in Apple's best interest to get on the good side of the publishers here. Sharp already did it with their Galapagos tablets. (I played with on at Bic Camera... nice size, but slow hardware and a 'is this it?' reaction makes me hope Apple becomes a larger player in the publishing industry here.)
post #27 of 43
Blanket response to doom sayers: this will get sorted out. It's not in apple's interest to infringe on copyrights but neither will they dismantle their ultra-successful business model. Adjustments will be made by all, everyone will get paid (all that should probably many that should not) and life will go in.
post #28 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by cummje View Post

Uh, folks, if this is the same issue as what was reported on months ago and if this isn't just late information, then Apple is completely at fault. The works of Haruki Murakami were being illegally distributed for a while via an app or apps in the app store...in Chinese. Japanese authors are very popular in China and distributing their publications in Chinese is worth millions of dollars. This issue has been well known for quite a while now. If Apple was simply waiting for a cease and desist letter then they were effectively stealing revenue from Japanese authors and publishers. That is assuming that this isn't information that's actually a couple of months old.

Wouldn't a common tactic be to create a new account and submit a new app once the offending app was removed? If Apple was aware of an offending app and left it alone for months, they'd probably bear some responsibility, but I seem to think that is unlikely.

A single app can provide access to thousands of books, do you really think it's reasonable to check them all?
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
The key to enjoying these forums: User CP -> Edit Ignore List
Reply
post #29 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by enohpI View Post

Why does the medium dictate the methods?

If a paper book gets published, methods are used to clear rights. If an electronic edition gets chosen, published and sold by apple, then why should they bear less responsibility than the guys who use paper?

If a piece of software gets published on plastic CDs, methods are used to clear rights. If Apple chooses, publishes and sells software via downloads from their App Store, then why should they bear less responsibility than the guys who sell infringing materials via plastic objects?

Please tell me why digital media distribution allows Apple to sell infringing stuff in their store?

The scale of the problem in a digital economy is far larger, and the returns are often a lot smaller. When you have a true long-tail economy, the cost vs. return of doing a complete authentication of every photograph or other kind of image used in the program or book, every sample, every video clip is cost prohibitive. There are technological methods to check for written plagiarism, I don't think that's quite there to the same level for photographs or other mediums. It was worth doing for books and pressed CDs since the publisher is footing a lot of other expenses to publish a single work and they have estimates for the level of sales they will get.
post #30 of 43
Bad Apple.
But as long as its removed -who cares?
post #31 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".

So are you able to determine for every item ever produced in the last 500 years who are the Copy Right owners and what exactly they have rights over. Some material over time has moved to the public domain do you know what has. The law on this matter has always been pretty clear, the owner has the responsibility to protect and defend their rights and if they fail to do so then they essentially award those right if they allow them to copied and used.

So it is your position that ever company out there should know if and content or written word or image has a copyright owner and they should deny those people using it without permission the use of it. Can you explain to all of us how this would work in the real world.

Also, do you know what you can use copyrighted material if you doing so for educational purpose or if you criticizing it or making humor of it. How do you think comedians use images or videos of shows and content without getting in trouble for copyright issue.
post #32 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by mknopp View Post


Wal-Mart would not print the pictures because they could not prove that they owned the copyright. So, all of you oh so knowledgeable people. Tell us exactly how you prove that you truly own something? How does Apple determine who owns what copyrights? How do they determine who has what license deals?

Well Wal-Mart is a bunch of idiots and they hire the least common denominator and you expect them to know the different between copyrighted photos and one someone produce themselves....
post #33 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The scale of the problem in a digital economy is far larger, and the returns are often a lot smaller. When you have a true long-tail economy, the cost vs. return of doing a complete authentication of every photograph or other kind of image used in the program or book, every sample, every video clip is cost prohibitive. There are technological methods to check for written plagiarism, I don't think that's quite there to the same level for photographs or other mediums. It was worth doing for books and pressed CDs since the publisher is footing a lot of other expenses to publish a single work and they have estimates for the level of sales they will get.


The point that book and CD publishers have to invest money, and that they therfore have more incentive to be certain about the IP that they sell doesn't make sense to me.

If anything, Apple has a lower investment, and therefore, has more wiggle room to do the usual IP due diligence. I don't think that they can avoid this just becuase they distribute digitally instead of in a physical format.
post #34 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


So it is your position that ever company out there should know if and content or written word or image has a copyright owner and they should deny those people using it without permission the use of it. Can you explain to all of us how this would work in the real world.



Generally, it works pretty well. It is seldom that retailers of copyrighted works sell counterfeit goods, and even more seldom that publishers put out infringing products.

The methods have been under continual refinement ever since the first copyright laws went onto the books.

Apple needs to obey the law.
post #35 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poma View Post

The point that book and CD publishers have to invest money, and that they therfore have more incentive to be certain about the IP that they sell doesn't make sense to me.

If anything, Apple has a lower investment, and therefore, has more wiggle room to do the usual IP due diligence. I don't think that they can avoid this just becuase they distribute digitally instead of in a physical format.

The problem is that the long tail makes it less feasible. The explosion in available works means the typical submitted work is going to take in less too.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Poma View Post

Generally, it works pretty well. It is seldom that retailers of copyrighted works sell counterfeit goods, and even more seldom that publishers put out infringing products.

The methods have been under continual refinement ever since the first copyright laws went onto the books.

Apple needs to obey the law.

In the US, there is a law covering digital media copyrights, the DMCA
post #36 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

T



In the US, there is a law covering digital media copyrights, the DMCA



Does it allow retailers and publishers to choose infringing works to sell?

I know that there is a safe harbor provision for websites that have open public forums and which thereby do not pick their own content (like AI and Google), but is that broad enough to cover book and software sellers who decide what they want to sell and what they don't want to sell?

Just because some publishers and retailers choose digital editions doesn't seem to matter - it is the process of deciding which titles to publish and/or which titles to sell which obligates them to avoid infringement.
post #37 of 43
Actually, under the DMCA it is the proper course of action for Google regarding YouTube. All the law requires Google to do is provide easily available contact information and for Google to remove infringing content promptly. If Google does that, it can't be held liable under copyright law. It would kill the Internet as we know it if websites had to verify all the content submitted to it. Copyright protection has to be balanced with Free Speech rights.

Apple, however, might not fall under the protection of the DMCA. The DMCA protection applies to content provided to an internet service provider where the provider doesn't actively review the content prior to publishing such as with YouTube. Apple, however, actively reviews the information. It likely couldn't use the DMCA as a defense to copyright protection. Japanese law probably differs.

Apple is probably more akin to Walmart. Both are liable if they sell infringing content because they review the content first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The whole "notify us and we'll remove it upon review" thing is really weak and unacceptable for corporations like Google and Apple (and eBay for that matter). Imagine if Walmart or any other retailer tried selling counterfeit Levis and DVDs, and just changed their store policy to "notify us of infringements, and we'll remove them upon review".
post #38 of 43
This is just another one of these thread where some people show they have no clue or understanding of the laws or what is capable in reality.

People copyright laws are very clear the owner is the one who is responsible of enforcing their rights, and they is no limit on how long they can go back in time, because the law states once they are made aware of the infringement they can come after you.

The reason the law is this was is at least our government and other governments realized they could not police this law and it really a civil matter and the owner is responsible not everyone else.

However, it seems like a few people are not that bright, that pretty bad when the government if brighter than you.
post #39 of 43
It's interesting that this news comes a day after I read an article stating that the Japanese government moved to relax the rules regarding the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials.

http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...yrighted-works
post #40 of 43
Quote:
Originally Posted by Poma View Post

Generally, it works pretty well. It is seldom that retailers of copyrighted works sell counterfeit goods, and even more seldom that publishers put out infringing products.

The methods have been under continual refinement ever since the first copyright laws went onto the books.

Apple needs to obey the law.

Retailer buy from the actual manufacturer so they know who they are buying from since they are buy from the person who owns and manufactures the product whether it is a book, a CD or jeans. It not like that are buying from so no name person or company who claims it is their product. However, if the manufacture choose to steal their ideas from others there is no way for the retailer to know this.

This is also why retailers and other companies today (and I believe Apple does this) now requires their suppliers to warranty and agree sign a contract which states they are not knowing infringing on anyone's rights or copyright or IP in their products they are selling. This is done due to the patient trolls out there who sue everyone even if they were the unknown party of the infringement.

The reason that patient trolls sue retailers is because they know that the retailer will put pressure on the supplier to resolve the matter or else.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Japanese publishers censure Apple over App Store copyright violations