Chinese writers double request for damages in Apple piracy suit - Page 2

A couple is issues must be addressed first. One is that the Apps they are claiming used their books as content in fact do violate copyright laws, and that these folks are the owners. This is an international law issue, and these folks must prove that. Absent proof that Apple cannot take the apps off line, else they will be subject damages by the app developers. It is the case, however, that the app developer must certify that they own the works, and hold Apple harmless if that is not the case.

After the plaintiffs prove their case for copyright, then the next step is damages. The appropriate damages should accrue to the developers of the app, not Apple. Damages can easily be calculated because Apple keeps download and payment histories for every app sold. Getting that information would be trivial.

No, not "everyone" knows that. If everyone knew who owned what IP, and stopped stealing the IP, the internet would be less of an open sewer.

One of the reasons eBay has the VERO program is for copyright holders (specifically big media, and frequently targeted IP theft (eg luxury brands, nike, nintendo) to find the copyright violations themselves and have the items removed from sale. These are manually reviewed (for multiple reasons) before takedowns, but usually the listings are just removed with the assumption that the IP holder knows what they are talking about. Sellers who frequently get reported also get their accounts frozen.

But then you get into the sticky situation where X owns Y IP in Country Z, where as B owns Y IP in Country Q, and X and B report each other because they are selling worldwide instead of only to their respective country (see the iTunes store for this kind of balkanized sales process.) This is known as parallel imports, and is something that comes up in ACTA.

Anyway, Chinese sellers are entitled to the same IP protection, however I can only think of one software product (used to reverse engineer flash, and indeed used to steal and republish other peoples flash games in China) that originates in China, and that's not iPhone software. It's far more common to discover hacked games that are produced in China utilizing the trademarks and copyrighted assets of existing commercially produced games.

So if you're Apple, and you receive thousands of Angry-farmanimal-launcher games a day, from every "developer" who used the same open source code, or stole the same code, you're not going to stop and go "are angry-flying-animals a trademark or copyright of someone?" No you're just going to accept the games until someone throws a fit and reports it. The same as eBay.

Once someone reports it, you can freeze the account until it's investigated, and if the developer says they can prove they own it, Apple can go "Okay you two go to court, and when you win, send me the court order for who gets unblocked."

There must be entire Chinese law schools set up to train lawyers to sue Apple.

First, in order to qualify for protection under the OCILLA, Apple should not have actual knowledge that it is selling infringing copyrighted material. If the owners of the books informed them, then Apple are liable; there is no need for a proof by the content owners, but rather a statement that the information about the infringement is accurate, under penalty of perjury.

Second, Apple could take the offending apps down without being "subject damages by the app developers", as it has done many times before.

Third, if you believe that Apple is not at fault by hosting and selling copyright infringing materials, then you probably believe that sites like the pirate bay are angels, since they only link to the material, without either hosting it or directly profiting from the distribution.

What I find curious is how some of the most vocal members on AI are conspicuously refraining from posting in this thread. Clearly they don't want to have a losing argument while defending Apple, but they would not make a statement against Apple's actions either; yet, those same people will continue to claim how objective and impartial they are...

Simple...Apple has $$$$, so everything is Apple's fault now.

And I thought lawyers, doctors and politicians are sleazy....start adding authors to that list.

Take your BS else where... you do realize APPLE can't vet every app down to the core content for copyrights? There isn't a company out there that can afford to flush this kind of manpower down the toilet. What you are saying isn't any different than suggest all web-hosting services should vet their websites... you are insane.

At least in the US, the DMCA requires a distributor to take down infringing content when requested by a copyright owner. If it's done in a timely manner, the distributor gets a "safe harbor" protection. I think by treaty, many other countries are required to have similar laws.


In this case? I don't know. I don't think there is a liability for accidental infringement.

They have to, according to the law, take down any offending material when the actual copyright holder informs them.

I am not the court, so I am not judging whether there actually was a copyright infringement, whether the authors contacted Apple in the appropriate fashion, and whether Apple responded promptly.

By the way, I reported your post as offensive...

Apple is the "retailer" not the publisher so pointing the authors to the 'offending publishers' is the correct first step. If the plaintiffs aren't directly pursuing the pirating companies (the ones producing and publishing the apps), then where is the legitimacy of their claim, and how can Apple be held "responsible"?

If they formally file suit against the offending publishers, then even before getting a temporary injunction against the content, Apple would probably pull the apps in question

But if I simply "claim" that a book in say, Amazon's vast catalog, is infringing my work, can I just sue Amazon, rather than the publisher of the book? I don't think so

Cart before the horse, and some understanding needed that unvalidated claims don't change the market much, unless there's some blatant and obvious lines being crossed. I guess it's not that simple.

They should sue the publishers, and then see what happens...

From the outside, or speaking generally, it is ironic. But you are one of the writers, would you silently allow your work to be usurped just because some of your countrymen do not respect copyright laws?

Only the smart ones. Ask Al Capone what they got him for (it was "tax evasion"). Some publicly-declared transaction red flags you and poof! the IRS appears. Launder the cash [or not] if you want, but be damned sure you don't forget to declare it and pay the taxes.

Safe Harbor is limited to Online Service Providers, described as:
(A) As used in subsection (a), the term "service provider" means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the users choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.
(B) As used in this section, other than subsection (a), the term "service provider" means a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities therefore, and includes an entity described in subparagraph (A).

It is a broad definition, but I didn't think someone making a profit directly off each sale could claim safe harbor.

Moreover... this is China and not the US...

Quoting another here for reference. I've read through some of those laws before, but a notice to Apple should be sufficient. Their product is most likely registered, and it shouldn't take waiting for a hearing to at least pull the product. Like I said, if they ripped off Apple, they would have been booted long ago.


That's what I was getting at. They don't have to go to court. They just need to show that they own the IP. Not everything goes to court just to determine ownership.

It wouldn't have to go to court for Apple to pull it but if both parties claim ownership, yes it will have to go to court to make a judgement of ownership.
Unless one party backs down.