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.
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?
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.
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
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.)
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.
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?
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.
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.
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....
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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".
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.
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.
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.
I don't understand why those got approved. Heck, iTunes is even worse. You can actually find music being sold in iTunes that seems to be uploaded by some random person, for sale! It's an obvious copyright violation. I mean how is that even possible.
On the other hand, I blame the publisher (recording companies in terms of iTunes) too. The fact that these things happened means there's a demand for those content. Japanese media industry is extremely archaic, even worse than the RIAA/MPAA. Heck, iTunes Japan is probably the only iTunes store that still use 128kbps DRMed AAC.
Comments
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.
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?
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.
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
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.)
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?
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.
But as long as its removed -who cares?
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.
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....
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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".
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.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/n...yrighted-works
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.
On the other hand, I blame the publisher (recording companies in terms of iTunes) too. The fact that these things happened means there's a demand for those content. Japanese media industry is extremely archaic, even worse than the RIAA/MPAA. Heck, iTunes Japan is probably the only iTunes store that still use 128kbps DRMed AAC.