Considering the number of Apple fans that enjoy telling lies, half truths and exaggerations about MS, I think they'd do well to actively avoid former Apple Store employees altogether.
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
Are you an App developer? Do you even know how the approval process works? The approval process has little or nothing to do with the content involved, they simply test the app to be certain it runs without causing problems with the hardware or the software. They do test to be certain that the application does not simply connect to a database or website that does not either belong to the developer or is public domain. In Apple's eyes, this App did none of that. They don't fact check all of the content of the App, otherwise they would be required to verify all of the dictionary contained in the Scrabble App or fact check all of the answers in Trivial Pursuit for errors.
Apple has not Censored any app out there. So don't claim they have been. Apps that don't get approval are for technical or CLEAR copyright violations.
From everything I've read, the Microsoft stores will not be selling the machines, just software, Zunes, X-Boxes, and accessories. I wish I lived close enough to one of these stores so I could go hang out and watch customers reactions when the salesperson convinces them that they've found the computer they need and want but they can't buy it.
You walk into an Apple store, and you walk out with a computer. You walk into a Microsoft store, and you walk out frustrated. Situation normal. Once again MS doesn't get it. Ballmer must personally be in charge of this one.
MS' entire store strategy is flawed. They won't actually provide customers with complete solutions that they can take home from the store. It's all just window-dressing and image repair. MS isn't getting into the store business for the benefit of customers or because it makes the MS experience easier. They're getting into it in order to attempt to convince everyone that they're "cool" too and can command mindshare. It's a glorified advertisement that will end up wasting everyone's time.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well.
That's not their responsiblity any more than it's a book store owner's to make sure that the books they sell aren't plagiarized; it's the publisher's responsibility (in this case, the developer, who also happens to be the author).
I can some wisdom in Apple including a clause in their App Store Developer terms & conditions where the developer is required to assert that they have the legal right to use any images used within the app, if only for purposes of having a legal defense against suits like this, but it seems to me that this lawsuit is not aimed at the appropriate party…
AppleInsider has received a number of reports in recent days from customers who qualify for Apple's Up To Date Program, stating that the Apple Online Store has accepted their order for Snow Leopard.
Are you just now learning about this one, AppleInsider??? This has been going on since JUNE and I ordered my copy in June. This is not news, nor is it a secret that no one knows about.
The photographer that doesn't sue the person who actually used his image without permission...duh...what a retard! Apple isn't the one using or distributing the photo, they didn't write the program. That will be a fun courtroom hearing...the judge telling the plaintiff what a dumbass he is.
MS' entire store strategy is flawed. They won't actually provide customers with complete solutions that they can take home from the store. It's all just window-dressing and image repair. MS isn't getting into the store business for the benefit of customers or because it makes the MS experience easier. They're getting into it in order to attempt to convince everyone that they're "cool" too and can command mindshare. It's a glorified advertisement that will end up wasting everyone's time.
Too bad it'll be like walking around in a museum.
microsoft is so sad, and they're really just proving how pathetic and resentful they are. they know better than anyone that they're not a company as apple that sells hardware and software, only software, and xboxes and mice...still they do it just out of resentment...
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
You're 100% right...
Apple is the Apps...
Sole Reviewer
Sole Approver
Sole Distributer
Apple looks just like a PUBLISHER from where I sit... All these folks who say Apple has every right to approve or NOT approve an app okay you're right.. Apple had every chance to NOT approve this application but chose instead to approve it...
- Approved it!
- Published it!
- Sold it!
I for one hope this guy gets ANOTHER check with an Apple logo at the top a number followed by LOTS of zeros on the right and Steve's signature at the bottom!
Hey Apple... Perhaps next time you'll spend just as much time looking for COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS as you do looking for apps that might in some way **besmirch** the iPhone Experience.
Where are the checks and contracts from Apple to the App developers for advances, royalties and promised delivery dates? Where is Apple telling devs what they should include in their apps, or what apps to write, or how to creatively change those apps for a better experience? Where are the dedicated app marketing campaigns. Where is the financial stake and potential for loss that the publisher assumes when they take on a client content creator? Those are the kinds of things a publisher does.
Apple does not do those mutually agreed upon two-way things as a contractual business partnership with the devs. Apple filters what they will put on their store shelf. If an app doesn't pass the filter Apple tells the dev why, which is far different than a publishers editor spending lots of dedicated time with an author to jointly create the best content they can.
Apple happens to be a single-source retailer for third party content running on two devices in their stable of products. Not a publisher. So they aren't required to act like a publisher in filtering third party content for copyright violations.
Would you think the Rolling Stones could sue your local record store, or any of the record stores across the world over the sampling copyright license violation the Verve accomplished in the song "Bittersweet Symphony"? No, it was between the principals -- the Bands & managers themselves. Even the label wasn't sued on that one.
I live in south Orange County and got called about my application to work at the Microsoft store in the Mission Viejo Mall! Hopefully I get the job because I can't wait to talk about why Microsoft products are far superior to Apple's. This place is going to be rockin!
I live in south Orange County and got called about my application to work at the Microsoft store in the Mission Viejo Mall! Hopefully I get the job because I can't wait to talk about why Microsoft products are far superior to Apple's. This place is going to be rockin!
That copyright suit is a bit crazy considering that Apple already settled with that person over the original use of the image in their own advertising.
.
pardon the pun but this is apples and oranges. Apple got permission for one specific use, not anything they want
however, this suit should be tossed on the grounds he's suing the wrong party. he should be suing the app creator which he has failed to even mention as a co in the suit
given that they make you click through a copyright warning in freaking iweb, you can bet that part of the iphone app submission is a statement that you have obtained the rights to all materials not your own. so Apple would be under the assumption that said app had the right to use the photo. it sounds like this photographer didn't bother to notify apple that he had not given permission, thus allowing them to suspend the app from the store until such time as the developer clears up the sitch. Had he done that and Apple didn't do anything then sure include them as one of the two parties. but this is not their software so they are not the party at fault.
My only concern is MS will start poaching apple store employees, since MS are looking for people "We're looking for new store employees who love technology and teaching and helping others,"
chances are the only folks they will get are the ones that ggot tossed by Apple for overly restricted availability and/or attendance isssues. so let them have them
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Apple is more than just a store.
actually in this case, a store is exactly what Apple is. they don't write the apps themselves (in which case they would be the party to blame)
Quote:
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property.
if Apple had to vet every app perhaps one a month would be approved. They set up the system so that such things are the job of the developers. As it should be
Quote:
They've showed they have censor police
under very particular conditions, yes. but that is not the same as being copyright police.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?
one word -- JAILBREAK
the guy can certainly apply that notion and give away/sell whatever he wants. here's a nice fat finger to apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
And a lot of seemingly spurious Appstore rejections were caused by Apple citing copyright concerns.
in those cases it was an matter of obvious concern. such as the app that allowed you to not only download ebooks but share them with someone else. Apple was right to question the app since not all the available books were public domain. And there was no apparent system in place to restrict sharing to only public domain titles. So you could go and pay to download (for example) Twilight and share it with me and cost the author et al a sale they should have had.
Apple is more than just a store - What is Apple then?
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. - How would you monitor someone ripping someone off? How would you monitor idea stealing or espionage?
True, but I believe there are sections in the iPhone Developer Program SDK Agreement that specifically indemnify Apple from any prosecution based on something your app does.
Apple looks just like a PUBLISHER from where I sit... All these folks who say Apple has every right to approve or NOT approve an app okay you're right.. Apple had every chance to NOT approve this application but chose instead to approve it...
- Approved it!
- Published it!
- Sold it!
I for one hope this guy gets ANOTHER check with an Apple logo at the top a number followed by LOTS of zeros on the right and Steve's signature at the bottom!
Hey Apple... Perhaps next time you'll spend just as much time looking for COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS as you do looking for apps that might in some way **besmirch** the iPhone Experience.
Idiots, you get exactly what you deserve!!
Dave
Just so we're clear here:
There are literally billions of individual pieces of work in the world today that are covered by copyright.
Heck, this post that I'm typing right now on a public forum is a copyrightable document - and as soon as I hit the "Submit" button it will be stored in a fixed form and thus would be automatically covered by copyright protection - although likely in this case the expectation is that I am either transferring ownership of the copyright to AppleInsider's administrators, or I am implicitly releasing it to the public domain.
(Of course, if the author of such a message was originating it in a country like Germany where authorship rights are, by law, nontransferrable, and where there is no provision to assign anything to the public domain by any means other than the pure passage of time, a German court would likely rule that the author of such a message would still hold a valid copyright in Germany even after submitting it to AppleInsider.)
I suggest that requiring Apple to ensure that every App is 100% void of all intellectual property infringement would prove to be not only unreasonably difficult, but ultimately, impossible. The onus should be with the author to certify they are not plagiarizing.
I suggest that requiring Apple to ensure that every App is 100% void of all intellectual property infringement would prove to be not only unreasonably difficult, but ultimately, impossible. The onus should be with the author to certify they are not plagiarizing.
I get the feeling from most of this thread, that we seem to be lifting the weight of responsibility off the developer and on to Apple. Amirite?
Sure, it's dumb that no one noticed the image in the i.TV app (horrible app BTW), but to not name the author of the app who actually did the infringing is wacko to say the least.
And pointless. The DCMA Safe Harbor causes appears indemnify Apple in these sorts of cases. Apple will have to argue that it was operating in good faith and they were acting solely as a conduit. Both seem fairly easy to demonstrate.
To put this in perspective, you can't sue Walmart if a product they sell on behalf of a 3rd party infringes copyright. People still try, of course, but they tend to fail.
Comments
Considering the number of Apple fans that enjoy telling lies, half truths and exaggerations about MS, I think they'd do well to actively avoid former Apple Store employees altogether.
What is that number?
You obviously didn't read what I said. It's not being sued because its a store! I never said that. Apple put their seal of approval on this app- is that too hard to understand?
Are you an App developer? Do you even know how the approval process works? The approval process has little or nothing to do with the content involved, they simply test the app to be certain it runs without causing problems with the hardware or the software. They do test to be certain that the application does not simply connect to a database or website that does not either belong to the developer or is public domain. In Apple's eyes, this App did none of that. They don't fact check all of the content of the App, otherwise they would be required to verify all of the dictionary contained in the Scrabble App or fact check all of the answers in Trivial Pursuit for errors.
Apple has not Censored any app out there. So don't claim they have been. Apps that don't get approval are for technical or CLEAR copyright violations.
From everything I've read, the Microsoft stores will not be selling the machines, just software, Zunes, X-Boxes, and accessories. I wish I lived close enough to one of these stores so I could go hang out and watch customers reactions when the salesperson convinces them that they've found the computer they need and want but they can't buy it.
You walk into an Apple store, and you walk out with a computer. You walk into a Microsoft store, and you walk out frustrated. Situation normal. Once again MS doesn't get it. Ballmer must personally be in charge of this one.
MS' entire store strategy is flawed. They won't actually provide customers with complete solutions that they can take home from the store. It's all just window-dressing and image repair. MS isn't getting into the store business for the benefit of customers or because it makes the MS experience easier. They're getting into it in order to attempt to convince everyone that they're "cool" too and can command mindshare. It's a glorified advertisement that will end up wasting everyone's time.
Too bad it'll be like walking around in a museum.
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well.
That's not their responsiblity any more than it's a book store owner's to make sure that the books they sell aren't plagiarized; it's the publisher's responsibility (in this case, the developer, who also happens to be the author).
I can some wisdom in Apple including a clause in their App Store Developer terms & conditions where the developer is required to assert that they have the legal right to use any images used within the app, if only for purposes of having a legal defense against suits like this, but it seems to me that this lawsuit is not aimed at the appropriate party…
And can you cite any legal precedent that backs that up? That just defies common sense.
Much of what he writes defies common sense.
AppleInsider has received a number of reports in recent days from customers who qualify for Apple's Up To Date Program, stating that the Apple Online Store has accepted their order for Snow Leopard.
Are you just now learning about this one, AppleInsider??? This has been going on since JUNE and I ordered my copy in June. This is not news, nor is it a secret that no one knows about.
MS' entire store strategy is flawed. They won't actually provide customers with complete solutions that they can take home from the store. It's all just window-dressing and image repair. MS isn't getting into the store business for the benefit of customers or because it makes the MS experience easier. They're getting into it in order to attempt to convince everyone that they're "cool" too and can command mindshare. It's a glorified advertisement that will end up wasting everyone's time.
Too bad it'll be like walking around in a museum.
microsoft is so sad, and they're really just proving how pathetic and resentful they are. they know better than anyone that they're not a company as apple that sells hardware and software, only software, and xboxes and mice...still they do it just out of resentment...
i bet this is ballmer's idea 100%...
Apple is more than just a store. Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. They've showed they have censor police so they should have intellectual rip-off police as well. Has the app been taken off yet? It clearly should be.
You're 100% right...
Apple is the Apps...
Sole Reviewer
Sole Approver
Sole Distributer
Apple looks just like a PUBLISHER from where I sit... All these folks who say Apple has every right to approve or NOT approve an app okay you're right.. Apple had every chance to NOT approve this application but chose instead to approve it...
- Approved it!
- Published it!
- Sold it!
I for one hope this guy gets ANOTHER check with an Apple logo at the top a number followed by LOTS of zeros on the right and Steve's signature at the bottom!
Hey Apple... Perhaps next time you'll spend just as much time looking for COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS as you do looking for apps that might in some way **besmirch** the iPhone Experience.
Idiots, you get exactly what you deserve!!
Dave
Apple does not do those mutually agreed upon two-way things as a contractual business partnership with the devs. Apple filters what they will put on their store shelf. If an app doesn't pass the filter Apple tells the dev why, which is far different than a publishers editor spending lots of dedicated time with an author to jointly create the best content they can.
Apple happens to be a single-source retailer for third party content running on two devices in their stable of products. Not a publisher. So they aren't required to act like a publisher in filtering third party content for copyright violations.
Would you think the Rolling Stones could sue your local record store, or any of the record stores across the world over the sampling copyright license violation the Verve accomplished in the song "Bittersweet Symphony"? No, it was between the principals -- the Bands & managers themselves. Even the label wasn't sued on that one.
I will let you know if I get the job.
I live in south Orange County and got called about my application to work at the Microsoft store in the Mission Viejo Mall! Hopefully I get the job because I can't wait to talk about why Microsoft products are far superior to Apple's. This place is going to be rockin!
I will let you know if I get the job.
how much were you paid to post that?
I will let you know if I get the job.
Don't bother. With a name like assclownbush you should be a shoe-in!
That copyright suit is a bit crazy considering that Apple already settled with that person over the original use of the image in their own advertising.
.
pardon the pun but this is apples and oranges. Apple got permission for one specific use, not anything they want
however, this suit should be tossed on the grounds he's suing the wrong party. he should be suing the app creator which he has failed to even mention as a co in the suit
given that they make you click through a copyright warning in freaking iweb, you can bet that part of the iphone app submission is a statement that you have obtained the rights to all materials not your own. so Apple would be under the assumption that said app had the right to use the photo. it sounds like this photographer didn't bother to notify apple that he had not given permission, thus allowing them to suspend the app from the store until such time as the developer clears up the sitch. Had he done that and Apple didn't do anything then sure include them as one of the two parties. but this is not their software so they are not the party at fault.
My only concern is MS will start poaching apple store employees, since MS are looking for people "We're looking for new store employees who love technology and teaching and helping others,"
chances are the only folks they will get are the ones that ggot tossed by Apple for overly restricted availability and/or attendance isssues. so let them have them
Apple is more than just a store.
actually in this case, a store is exactly what Apple is. they don't write the apps themselves (in which case they would be the party to blame)
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property.
if Apple had to vet every app perhaps one a month would be approved. They set up the system so that such things are the job of the developers. As it should be
They've showed they have censor police
under very particular conditions, yes. but that is not the same as being copyright police.
Can this guy sell this app without Apple's approval?- NO.
Can he sell it on his own? NO- only Apple can sell it.
If that's doesn't make sense - then what does?
one word -- JAILBREAK
the guy can certainly apply that notion and give away/sell whatever he wants. here's a nice fat finger to apple.
And a lot of seemingly spurious Appstore rejections were caused by Apple citing copyright concerns.
in those cases it was an matter of obvious concern. such as the app that allowed you to not only download ebooks but share them with someone else. Apple was right to question the app since not all the available books were public domain. And there was no apparent system in place to restrict sharing to only public domain titles. So you could go and pay to download (for example) Twilight and share it with me and cost the author et al a sale they should have had.
Apple is more than just a store - What is Apple then?
Apple should have in place proper monitoring of anyone improperly ripping off someone's property. - How would you monitor someone ripping someone off? How would you monitor idea stealing or espionage?
True, but I believe there are sections in the iPhone Developer Program SDK Agreement that specifically indemnify Apple from any prosecution based on something your app does.
You're 100% right...
Apple is the Apps...
Sole Reviewer
Sole Approver
Sole Distributer
Apple looks just like a PUBLISHER from where I sit... All these folks who say Apple has every right to approve or NOT approve an app okay you're right.. Apple had every chance to NOT approve this application but chose instead to approve it...
- Approved it!
- Published it!
- Sold it!
I for one hope this guy gets ANOTHER check with an Apple logo at the top a number followed by LOTS of zeros on the right and Steve's signature at the bottom!
Hey Apple... Perhaps next time you'll spend just as much time looking for COPYRIGHT VIOLATORS as you do looking for apps that might in some way **besmirch** the iPhone Experience.
Idiots, you get exactly what you deserve!!
Dave
Just so we're clear here:
There are literally billions of individual pieces of work in the world today that are covered by copyright.
Heck, this post that I'm typing right now on a public forum is a copyrightable document - and as soon as I hit the "Submit" button it will be stored in a fixed form and thus would be automatically covered by copyright protection - although likely in this case the expectation is that I am either transferring ownership of the copyright to AppleInsider's administrators, or I am implicitly releasing it to the public domain.
(Of course, if the author of such a message was originating it in a country like Germany where authorship rights are, by law, nontransferrable, and where there is no provision to assign anything to the public domain by any means other than the pure passage of time, a German court would likely rule that the author of such a message would still hold a valid copyright in Germany even after submitting it to AppleInsider.)
I suggest that requiring Apple to ensure that every App is 100% void of all intellectual property infringement would prove to be not only unreasonably difficult, but ultimately, impossible. The onus should be with the author to certify they are not plagiarizing.
Just so we're clear here:
I suggest that requiring Apple to ensure that every App is 100% void of all intellectual property infringement would prove to be not only unreasonably difficult, but ultimately, impossible. The onus should be with the author to certify they are not plagiarizing.
I get the feeling from most of this thread, that we seem to be lifting the weight of responsibility off the developer and on to Apple. Amirite?
Sure, it's dumb that no one noticed the image in the i.TV app (horrible app BTW), but to not name the author of the app who actually did the infringing is wacko to say the least.
And pointless. The DCMA Safe Harbor causes appears indemnify Apple in these sorts of cases. Apple will have to argue that it was operating in good faith and they were acting solely as a conduit. Both seem fairly easy to demonstrate.
To put this in perspective, you can't sue Walmart if a product they sell on behalf of a 3rd party infringes copyright. People still try, of course, but they tend to fail.
Maury