PDA

View Full Version : Apple Ordered to Pay Chinese Writers in eBook Settlement




MacRumors
Dec 28, 2012, 08:42 AM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/28/apple-ordered-to-pay-chinese-writers-in-ebook-settlement/)


http://images.macrumors.com/article-new/2012/04/ibooks_ipad_hand-150x167.jpgThe Wall Street Journal reports (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323300404578205281801652860.html) that Chinese courts have ordered Apple to pay a group of Chinese writers $165,000 for unlawfully distributing copyrighted works in certain Chinese apps.A Beijing court ordered*Apple*Inc.*to pay 1.03 million yuan, or about $165,000, to a group of local writers who said the U.S. gadget maker sold unlicensed copies of their books online, according to state media.

The state-run Xinhua news agency said Thursday that the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court ordered Apple to pay the money to eight Chinese writers and two companies for violating their copyrights.The writers had asked for 10 million yuan and Apple was ordered to pay a fraction of that. Unlicensed eBook distribution has been a problem for Apple of late, as the report notes that the company had a similar issue back in September. Apple isn't intentionally distributing the copyrighted content itself, but because the company is the gatekeeper for the digital stores, the Chinese courts are requiring Apple to pay.

Article Link: Apple Ordered to Pay Chinese Writers in eBook Settlement (http://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/28/apple-ordered-to-pay-chinese-writers-in-ebook-settlement/)



Kaibelf
Dec 28, 2012, 09:00 AM
Close down the Chinese bookstore then, since the country wants to hold them responsible for the actions of their devs. After all, China doesn't want people to get "unauthorized" information to people anyway.

Thunderhawks
Dec 28, 2012, 09:09 AM
Close down the Chinese bookstore then, since the country wants to hold them responsible for the actions of their devs. After all, China doesn't want people to get "unauthorized" information to people anyway.

Whenever I read anything that the Chinese complain about with copyright, unauthorized distribution etc. I have to laugh.

Sad as it is:-)

CindyRed
Dec 28, 2012, 09:14 AM
I read this article on my mePhone then looked for the original story on my myPad.

wordoflife
Dec 28, 2012, 10:12 AM
Close down the Chinese bookstore then, since the country wants to hold them responsible for the actions of their devs. After all, China doesn't want people to get "unauthorized" information to people anyway.

Not that what you say is entirely true, but it works both way. When Lodsys sued many developers, Apple stood up for them.

mw360
Dec 28, 2012, 10:30 AM
Close down the Chinese bookstore then, since the country wants to hold them responsible for the actions of their devs. After all, China doesn't want people to get "unauthorized" information to people anyway.

Don't be stupid, Apple pays out for this, then sues whoever submitted the apps/books for compensation. Simple legal processes taking place. Apple probably aren't troubled by this at all.

martial900
Dec 28, 2012, 10:32 AM
I do not know who approved the ebook titles to appear in chinese itunes in the first place. That person is responsible for uploading them and failing to show verified authorization from the original publisher attached to the ebook submission. Since Apple we know profits. Its clear that these angry customers need their money back. Its a matter of checking their logbooks. I am glad that Apple isnt ordered to pay 90% more.

NakedPaulToast
Dec 28, 2012, 11:12 AM
As the distributor of the infringing material Apple should have some liability. Now what Apple should do is go after the ones who uploaded the books. They may not be able to recover all or any of their damages, but financially breaking them will serve as a pretty good incentive for others.

Plutonius
Dec 28, 2012, 11:26 AM
As the distributor of the infringing material Apple should have some liability. Now what Apple should do is go after the ones who uploaded the books. They may not be able to recover all or any of their damages, but financially breaking them will serve as a pretty good incentive for others.

Why didn't the writers sue the people who uploaded the books directly instead of going after Apple ? Answer - Apple has more money.

I would not be surprised if it was a scam where the group of writers arranged to have someone upload the books so the writers could sue :D.

NakedPaulToast
Dec 28, 2012, 01:24 PM
Why didn't the writers sue the people who uploaded the books directly instead of going after Apple ? Answer - Apple has more money.

I would not be surprised if it was a scam where the group of writers arranged to have someone upload the books so the writers could sue :D.

I don't know if China has a Jointly and Severally Liability Doctrine, but this ruling suggests that they might. This doctrine, which is used in most of the states, makes it incumbent on the defendants to work out who owes what percentage, so the plaintiff doesn't have to.

For example, if a bunch of punks (5) trashed your car and caused $5,000 damage. You should not have to sue each one for $1,000. You just have to go after one for the amount, and then he has to settle amongst the rest.

And yes, it's pretty standard to go after the easiest target.

theelysium
Dec 28, 2012, 01:40 PM
That's BS. Chinese citizens are creating junk lawsuits to try to sue for huge amounts of unwarranted cash. China has the WORTS copy right laws. They allow pirated media and consumer goods. The fact that they would actually try to uphold any type copy right lawsuit reflects the flaws of Communism and the crookedness of Chinese courts.

AppleMacFinder
Dec 28, 2012, 02:10 PM
That's BS. Chinese citizens are creating junk lawsuits to try to sue for huge amounts of unwarranted cash. China has the WORTS copy right laws. They allow pirated media and consumer goods. The fact that they would actually try to uphold any type copy right lawsuit reflects the flaws of Communism and the crookedness of Chinese courts.

For consumers, piracy is a good thing:
1) It lets people to get something which they could not afford to buy under any possible conditions
2) It makes companies to reasonably price their products.

Kaibelf
Dec 28, 2012, 02:37 PM
For consumers, piracy is a good thing:
1) It lets people to get something which they could not afford to buy under any possible conditions
2) It makes companies to reasonably price their products.

1) The way I was raised, that's called "stealing." Especially if it's a luxury that they shouldn't have if they didn't work for the money to afford, and they don't need it to live.
2) It drives up the prices for everyone else, because we have to compensate for YOUR lack of proper rearing.

AppleMacFinder
Dec 28, 2012, 03:00 PM
1) The way I was raised, that's called "stealing." Especially if it's a luxury that they shouldn't have if they didn't work for the money to afford, and they don't need it to live.
2) It drives up the prices for everyone else, because we have to compensate for YOUR lack of proper rearing.

Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.
And now there are two cars. The horror. :eek:

gnasher729
Dec 28, 2012, 03:20 PM
That's BS. Chinese citizens are creating junk lawsuits to try to sue for huge amounts of unwarranted cash. China has the WORTS copy right laws. They allow pirated media and consumer goods. The fact that they would actually try to uphold any type copy right lawsuit reflects the flaws of Communism and the crookedness of Chinese courts.

It seems that the people suing had written books, and these books were sold through Apple, without any of the money going to the authors. Why would that money be unwarranted? At the very least I would expect the authors to get 70% of the purchase price, as if Apple had signed a contract with them. More likely 100% since there was no contract allowing Apple to keep some money. I would actually think that a higher amount would be warranted, since an author would set the price of an eBook to maximise profit taking into account the cannibalisation of printed book sales, while the scammers didn't.

.Why didn't the writers sue the people who uploaded the books directly instead of going after Apple ? Answer - Apple has more money.

I would not be surprised if it was a scam where the group of writers arranged to have someone upload the books so the writers could sue :D.

That would be risking jail for fraud. In the UK, serious time for perverting the course of justice.

lyrical1
Dec 28, 2012, 03:44 PM
So it means that though apple is not responsible for the copyrights issue independently, it is required to pay that way.

mw360
Dec 28, 2012, 03:58 PM
For consumers, piracy is a good thing:
1) It lets people to get something which they could not afford to buy under any possible conditions
2) It makes companies to reasonably price their products.

Dude, both those things are completely contradictory. What you meant to say was, it helps people get for free some reasonably priced items they could easily afford to pay for.

----------

Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.
And now there are two cars. The horror. :eek:

Piracy is the equivalent of duplicating currency. The only victim is every law abiding person who's goods/money just got devalued by greedy freeloaders.

mikechan1234
Dec 28, 2012, 05:57 PM
People here just don't quite understand how important the Chinese market is to Apple. Apple need the Chinese market more than the Chinese need Apple. :rolleyes:

gnasher729
Dec 28, 2012, 06:39 PM
So it means that though apple is not responsible for the copyrights issue independently, it is required to pay that way.

Apple is (it seems) required to pay money to the victim. We don't know how the amount to be paid was calculated; it is quite obvious that Apple should pay 70% of the revenue to the copyright holder, just as they pay 70% of the revenue to _every_ copyright holder. The amount required by the court may be more.

Apple's app store contract also says that they can request 100% of the revenue back from the scammer, and I'm sure if Apple's cost was more than that they can take the scammer to court for their cost as well. If the scammer has any money.


For consumers, piracy is a good thing:
1) It lets people to get something which they could not afford to buy under any possible conditions
2) It makes companies to reasonably price their products.

Seven people voted this up. Amazing.

People who steal books or music or videos or software are thieves, not consumers. For consumers, piracy is _not_ a good thing. Piracy increases the price that has to be charged to make a profit, and it can lead to copy prevention measures that harm consumers. And when you say "reasonably price" I assume you mean "sell cheaper", right? That's not happening. Companies know that thieves are thieves and they are going to steal if they can, no matter what the price is. Changing prices won't affect piracy.


Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.
And now there are two cars. The horror. :eek:

Piracy is the equivalent of using a bus or taxi without paying, sneaking into a movie theatre without paying, or going to a theatre where musicians and actors try to make a living by putting up a performance for a paying audience, and some bastard thinks "these guys are on the stage whether I pay or not, so I might as well sneak in without a ticket".

thekev
Dec 28, 2012, 07:05 PM
Apple is (it seems) required to pay money to the victim. We don't know how the amount to be paid was calculated; it is quite obvious that Apple should pay 70% of the revenue to the copyright holder, just as they pay 70% of the revenue to _every_ copyright holder. The amount required by the court may be more.


Why wouldn't it be 100% or 100% minus Apple's costs such as credit card processing fees? They don't have the right to sell such a thing, so they don't necessarily get to derive profit from it. I don't see it as a big deal if they aren't eating major costs as well.

coolspot18
Dec 28, 2012, 09:14 PM
Piracy is the equivalent of using a bus or taxi without paying, sneaking into a movie theatre without paying, or going to a theatre where musicians and actors try to make a living by putting up a performance for a paying audience, and some bastard thinks "these guys are on the stage whether I pay or not, so I might as well sneak in without a ticket".

Piracy is not equivalent to your examples - no resources are lost when software is duplicated. Software can be duplicated ad infinitum with no degradation or perceptible cost.

I'm not saying piracy is right - but it is not the same as stealing a physical item.

Maxx Power
Dec 28, 2012, 09:43 PM
Piracy is not equivalent to your examples - no resources are lost when software is duplicated. Software can be duplicated ad infinitum with no degradation or perceptible cost.

I'm not saying piracy is right - but it is not the same as stealing a physical item.

Exactly. What is right is decided by local law and customs, piracy is only information exchange like taping the radio or tv. Certainly not the same as depriving someone of a tangible item. One could also argue that profiteering is essentially the same thing as piracy via depreciation, and lots of those practices are apparently legal.

BlazednSleepy
Dec 28, 2012, 10:58 PM
That's money from under the couch cushion for Apple. lol

mrsir2009
Dec 28, 2012, 11:59 PM
Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.
And now there are two cars. The horror. :eek:

Yeah, and if that was so then no one would buy cars anymore, would they? Because they could just duplicate someone else's.

----------

Piracy is not equivalent to your examples - no resources are lost when software is duplicated. Software can be duplicated ad infinitum with no degradation or perceptible cost.

I'm not saying piracy is right - but it is not the same as stealing a physical item.

Sneaking into a movie theatre without paying isn't losing anyone any resources, is it?

AppleMacFinder
Dec 29, 2012, 01:23 AM
People who steal books or music or videos or software are thieves, not consumers. For consumers, piracy is _not_ a good thing. Piracy increases the price that has to be charged to make a profit, and it can lead to copy prevention measures that harm consumers. And when you say "reasonably price" I assume you mean "sell cheaper", right? That's not happening. Companies know that thieves are thieves and they are going to steal if they can, no matter what the price is. Changing prices won't affect piracy.

Dude, both those things are completely contradictory. What you meant to say was, it helps people get for free some reasonably priced items they could easily afford to pay for.

It seems that you used to think about software in the following way:
"If you cannot afford it, you do not need it. It is not essential to life."

Yet, my university students just have to use the pirated software!
They cannot afford spending $1000 on Matlab, cannot afford spending $600 on Multisim, and so on.
And if they do not pirate all these software, there is a very high risk of bad marks, or even dropout!

So, there is nothing wrong happens when they pirate some "premium" software, do their homework,
and uninstall it after the end of the course - to free a disk space for new pirated software, used in the next course.

And that is not a single case. My friend is a prominent doctor, he cured a lot of people.
Recently, I have discovered that he uses a ton of pirated medical software, which helps him a lot.
He cannot afford buying it: because he works in a public hospital, his wage is really low.
I cannot come up with a single reason, why he should stop using that software!


Piracy is the equivalent of duplicating currency. The only victim is every law abiding person who's goods/money just got devalued by greedy freeloaders.

That is not equivalent.
When the currency is duplicated, it is used to affect the outside world (e.g. buy something for these forged money)
When you install a pirated software on your computer, usually it does not affect the outside world at any way.
Nobody from the outside world cares about what is stored on your harddrive inside your computer in your basement!

otherjobs
Dec 29, 2012, 02:39 AM
Yeah, and if that was so then no one would buy cars anymore, would they? Because they could just duplicate someone else's.

And everybody will have their own car for free, while I bought it for money!

http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4830/unacceptable.png

:rolleyes:

Jodles
Dec 29, 2012, 03:17 AM
Yet, my university students just have to use the pirated software!
They cannot afford spending $1000 on Matlab, cannot afford spending $600 on Multisim, and so on.
And if they do not pirate all these software, there is a very high risk of bad marks, or even dropout!


MATLAB student version costs $100. And surely the university provides computers in labs with this kind of software installed! I've studies maths at uni and never had to install MATLAB at home. If we required it, we could vpn into the uni servers.

And if they're desperate to have MATLAB on their personal computers, either buy a few less beers a week and pay $100, or consider using R....

macs4nw
Dec 29, 2012, 03:32 AM
For consumers, piracy is a good thing:
1) It lets people to get something which they could not afford to buy under any possible conditions
2) It makes companies to reasonably price their products.

You must be joking, right? It deprives the author of money they have earned, and have worked hard for.
See also Kaibelf below.

1) The way I was raised, that's called "stealing." Especially if it's a luxury that they shouldn't have if they didn't work for the money to afford, and they don't need it to live.
2) It drives up the prices for everyone else, because we have to compensate for YOUR lack of proper rearing.

macs4nw
Dec 29, 2012, 03:46 AM
Why didn't the writers sue the people who uploaded the books directly instead of going after Apple ? Answer - Apple has more money. I would not be surprised if it was a scam where the group of writers arranged to have someone upload the books so the writers could sue :D.

Hmmm....makes you wonder.

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 04:05 AM
It seems that you used to think about software in the following way:
"If you cannot afford it, you do not need it. It is not essential to life."

Yet, my university students just have to use the pirated software!
They cannot afford spending $1000 on Matlab, cannot afford spending $600 on Multisim, and so on.
And if they do not pirate all these software, there is a very high risk of bad marks, or even dropout!

So, there is nothing wrong happens when they pirate some "premium" software, do their homework,
and uninstall it after the end of the course - to free a disk space for new pirated software, used in the next course.


Well, aside from the fact that in some cultures (the US) higher education is not a universal right for rich or poor, the main issue here is that as far as I know Matlab is available on an academic license which can be transferred to students. If your university is not providing that for you, then they IMO are the ones guilty of depriving the Matlab makers of rightful income. Teaching Matlab, without providing Matlab isn't fair.


And that is not a single case. My friend is a prominent doctor, he cured a lot of people.
Recently, I have discovered that he uses a ton of pirated medical software, which helps him a lot.
He cannot afford buying it: because he works in a public hospital, his wage is really low.
I cannot come up with a single reason, why he should stop using that software!



Would it be right for him to manufacture counterfeit patented drugs? Yes of course! Except, no, because that devalues those drugs, jeopardising the drug company's revenue and threatening future research. At the very least, the availability of free versions, constricts the available market for the legitimate version, causing the producers to increase the price to cover the fixed cost of development. If you encourage counterfeiting your ultimate scenarios are either a two tier system, where some doctors have unlimited free drugs, and some have constrained expensive drugs, which is horribly unfair on patients, or a utopian free-for-all followed by a rapid collapse in the development of new treatments. If one or two guys quietly do this without a fuss, the end scenarios are unlikely to come true, although harm is still done. If people on the Internet, reaching audiences of millions actually vociferously advocate this kind of thing, then what's the stop it ending every badly for us all?


That is not equivalent.
When the currency is duplicated, it is used to affect the outside world (e.g. buy something for these forged money)
When you install a pirated software on your computer, usually it does not affect the outside world at any way.
Nobody from the outside world cares about what is stored on your harddrive inside your computer in your basement!

Its exactly the same. One guy buys fancy goods that his peers can't afford - with fake money. One guy earns a degree thar his peers can't - using fake software licenses. One guy saves lives (allegedly) that his peers can't save - again with fake licenses. You can't have it both ways. Piracy affects the real world or it doesn't change anything. Pick one.

Also, the real concern is that one pirated copy reduces the available market in the real world by one person/institution. That has a real tangible effect in the value of the product. It becomes less valuable in the eyes of every single person who knows that free version is available. That decreases the likelihood of further sales, especially when idiots go on the net bragging about it.

AppleMacFinder
Dec 29, 2012, 04:07 AM
MATLAB student version costs $100.

I admit my mistake about MATLAB. However, Multisim still costs $600.
And you also need: Microsoft Visual Studio, Embarcadero RAD Studio, Oracle Database, and much, much more.

And surely the university provides computers in labs with this kind of software installed!
And surely the university provides computers in labs with this kind of software installed! I've studies maths at uni and never had to install MATLAB at home. If we required it, we could vpn into the uni servers.

Yes, our university provides lab computers, but the homework still should be done at home.
We have VPN as well. But, the license agreement of many expensive software products
does not allow to set up a remote access to them. As result, students could access a VPN,
but only a limited set of software is available through VPN to them. :(

And, because the license agreements are the same for all the universities,
this situation is not exclusive to our university.

And if they're desperate to have MATLAB on their personal computers, either buy a few less beers a week and pay $100, or consider using R....

In a country where I live, for $1 you could buy a 1 litre bottle of beer.
For $100, you could buy 100 bottles, or 5 boxes of beer.
I cannot imagine that someone would follow your advice.

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 04:27 AM
I admit my mistake about MATLAB. However, Multisim still costs $600.
And you also need: Microsoft Visual Studio, Embarcadero RAD Studio, Oracle Database, and much, much more.



Yes, our university provides lab computers, but the homework still should be done at home.
We have VPN as well. But, the license agreement of many expensive software products
does not allow to set up a remote access to them. As result, students could access a VPN,
but only a limited set of software is available through VPN to them. :(

And, because the license agreements are the same for all the universities,
this situation is not exclusive to our university.



In a country where I live, for $1 you could buy a 1 litre bottle of beer.
For $100, you could buy 100 bottles, or 5 boxes of beer.
I cannot imagine that someone would follow your advice.

Hmm, my university had Solaris workstations. They had 'homework' which could only be completed on Solaris workstations. No student bought (or stole) a Solaris workstation to complete his/her homework. Can you figure out what happened? Clue: we didn't quibble about the exact definition of 'homework'

iZac
Dec 29, 2012, 04:40 AM
Piracy is the equivalent of duplicating currency. The only victim is every law abiding person who's goods/money just got devalued by greedy freeloaders.

This is in my mind is a really good analogy for effect of piracy. It's an agent that illegitimately increases inflation / devalues currency since you spend the money you save on other goods and services.

AppleMacFinder
Dec 29, 2012, 04:53 AM
Would it be right for him to manufacture counterfeit patented drugs? Yes of course! Except, no, because that devalues those drugs, jeopardising the drug company's revenue and threatening future research. At the very least, the availability of free versions, constricts the available market for the legitimate version, causing the producers to increase the price to cover the fixed cost of development. If you encourage counterfeiting your ultimate scenarios are either a two tier system, where some doctors have unlimited free drugs, and some have constrained expensive drugs, which is horribly unfair on patients, or a utopian free-for-all followed by a rapid collapse in the development of new treatments. If one or two guys quietly do this without a fuss, the end scenarios are unlikely to come true, although harm is still done. If people on the Internet, reaching audiences of millions actually vociferously advocate this kind of thing, then what's the stop it ending every badly for us all?

Medical software is not used for making drugs by yourself.
Learn more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_software

Hmm, my university had Solaris workstations. They had 'homework' which could only be completed on Solaris workstations. No student bought (or stole) a Solaris workstation to complete his/her homework. Can you figure out what happened? Clue: we didn't quibble about the exact definition of 'homework'

There are a lot of students, both morning and evening.
All the available machine time is devoted to class work.

One guy buys fancy goods that his peers can't afford - with fake money.

Example with money was proven false in my previous post.

One guy earns a degree thar his peers can't - using fake software licenses.

I do not know a single student who have prefered to lose a chance to get a degree instead of using pirated software.
All my students got their degrees with the help of pirated software.

One guy saves lives (allegedly) that his peers can't save - again with fake licenses.

Wait, are you telling us that it is better to let people die than to use the pirated software to save their lives? :mad:

Piracy affects the real world or it doesn't change anything. Pick one.

Piracy makes a world a better place to live for most people.

Also, the real concern is that one pirated copy reduces the available market in the real world by one person/institution. That has a real tangible effect in the value of the product. It becomes less valuable in the eyes of every single person who knows that free version is available. That decreases the likelihood of further sales.

People who cannot afford buying your overpriced software are not in your available market!
If they would not have an opportunity to pirate your software, they would not have bought it anyway!

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 04:58 AM
Medical software is not used for making drugs by yourself.
Learn more about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_software



There are a lot of students, both morning and evening.
All the available machine time is devoted to class work.



Example with money was proven false in my previous post.



I do not know a single student who have prefered to lose a chance to get a degree instead of using pirated software.
All my students got their degrees with the help of pirated software.



Wait, are you telling us that it is better to let people die than to use the pirated software to save their lives? :mad:



Piracy makes a world a better place to live for most people.



People who cannot afford buying your overpriced software are not in your available market!
If they would not have an opportunity to pirate your software, they would not have bought it anyway!

Ok, you don't really seem to have a single clue what I'm talking about. Good luck with that education.

otherjobs
Dec 29, 2012, 06:17 AM
One guy buys fancy goods that his peers can't afford - with fake money.
One guy earns a degree thar his peers can't - using fake software licenses.
One guy saves lives (allegedly) that his peers can't save - again with fake licenses.

Dude your ignorance does not know any limits! :eek:
Probably you watched too many piracy commercials.
Watch this one and your mind will not stay the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 06:21 AM
Dude your ignorance does not know any limits! :eek:
Probably you watched too many piracy commercials.
Watch this one and your mind will not stay the same:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg

No thanks. Got anything to say in your own words?

otherjobs
Dec 29, 2012, 06:44 AM
No thanks. Got anything to say in your own words?

If my opinion is completely the same, there is no need to waste time to say in my own words. :confused:
A picture worth a thousand words, and a video - even more! :)

http://img855.imageshack.us/img855/9788/itcrowd.png (www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)

Just click on the image above. You won't be disappointed ;)

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 06:58 AM
If my opinion is completely the same, there is no need to waste time to say in my own words. :confused:
A picture worth a thousand words, and a video - even more! :)

Image (/watch?v=ALZZx1xmAzg)

Just click on the image above. You won't be disappointed ;)

I had low expectations, but was still disappointed. Wanna try adding adding a proper URL so your link works?

otherjobs
Dec 29, 2012, 07:08 AM
I had low expectations, but was still disappointed. Wanna try adding adding a proper URL so your link works?

Sorry, should be fixed now.

mw360
Dec 29, 2012, 07:12 AM
Sorry, should be fixed now.

Ah, okay, The IT Crowd, I didn't expect that. You win this round Internet thievery apologist, but I'll be back.

centauratlas
Dec 29, 2012, 08:50 AM
And it would have cost you $200 billion since you were the one paying all the costs for the PEOPLE who spent their time developing everything that went into it to make that one car.

And everybody will have their own car for free, while I bought it for money!

Image (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4830/unacceptable.png)

:rolleyes:

----------

That is the nature of a CHOICE. You can buy one thing now, the beer, or wait, and do something productive with your money such as improve yourself via education.

Just because you choose to purchase beer instead of software does not mean it is your right to make someone else provide it for you. That is called slavery.


In a country where I live, for $1 you could buy a 1 litre bottle of beer.
For $100, you could buy 100 bottles, or 5 boxes of beer.
I cannot imagine that someone would follow your advice.

----------

Until developers stop writing software because their work has been stolen by others. Then it makes the world a much worse place to live for everyone.


Piracy makes a world a better place to live for most people.

otherjobs
Dec 29, 2012, 08:55 AM
And it would have cost you $200 billion since you were the one paying all the costs for the PEOPLE who spent their time developing everything that went into it to make that one car.

People copied my car after I have bought it. I paid a normal price for it.
By the way, picture could tell you that it was a sarcasm :rolleyes:

Just because you choose to purchase beer instead of software does not mean it is your right to make someone else provide it for you. That is called slavery.

Since nobody is enslaved, where is slavery? :confused:

Until developers stop writing software because their work has been stolen by others. Then it makes the world a much worse place to live for everyone.

Don't worry, my friend: there are still a lot of users, which belong to one or more of the following groups:
1) Don't know how to pirate
2) Too scared of FBI to pirate
3) Too rich and can afford anything

I will leave them the honor to support the developers.

gnasher729
Dec 29, 2012, 09:50 AM
Why wouldn't it be 100% or 100% minus Apple's costs such as credit card processing fees? They don't have the right to sell such a thing, so they don't necessarily get to derive profit from it. I don't see it as a big deal if they aren't eating major costs as well.

When I said "quite obvious that Apple should pay 70%" that was the base line, where there is no reasonable argument that Apple shouldn't pay that money. There can obviously be arguments that Apple should pay more.

----------

Piracy is not equivalent to your examples - no resources are lost when software is duplicated. Software can be duplicated ad infinitum with no degradation or perceptible cost.

I'm not saying piracy is right - but it is not the same as stealing a physical item.

The development cost doesn't go away. And the development cost has to be shared by the paying customers. By stealing the software you increase the cost for all honest customers.

seanm9
Dec 29, 2012, 11:11 AM
\
And, because the license agreements are the same for all the universities,
this situation is not exclusive to our university..

So if University 1 pays extra for all the licenses it needs for its students and University 2 pirates (or encourages its students to pirate) the licenses you dont see the ethical issue there... yes the agreements are the same, and some schools follow them and others don't.... sounds fishy to me


In a country where I live, for $1 you could buy a 1 litre bottle of beer.
For $100, you could buy 100 bottles, or 5 boxes of beer.
I cannot imagine that someone would follow your advice
..

you dont by much beer do you... depending on brand in the US a beer cost about 1.50 for a 12oz can.... you can by 24 cans (a case) for about $15.00... so buying in volume lowers the price per can... in your country $1 a liter seems a great price, but $100 for 100 liters seems steep compared the per liter price...

kd5jos
Dec 29, 2012, 11:45 AM
Don't be stupid, Apple pays out for this, then sues whoever submitted the apps/books for compensation. Simple legal processes taking place. Apple probably aren't troubled by this at all.

If it's worth the time that is costs to do it. What may happen is the devs are just prevented from distributing through Apple again (preventing the liability issue from them).

thekev
Dec 29, 2012, 11:55 AM
When I said "quite obvious that Apple should pay 70%" that was the base line, where there is no reasonable argument that Apple shouldn't pay that money. There can obviously be arguments that Apple should pay more.

Oh that makes sense. I read it differently


The development cost doesn't go away. And the development cost has to be shared by the paying customers. By stealing the software you increase the cost for all honest customers.

Actually your analogies were quite reasonable as they didn't compare to tangible goods.

theelysium
Dec 29, 2012, 11:57 AM
[QUOTE=gnasher729;16567743]It seems that the people suing had written books, and these books were sold through Apple, without any of the money going to the authors. Why would that money be unwarranted? At the very least I would expect the authors to get 70% of the purchase price, as if Apple had signed a contract with them. More likely 100% since there was no contract allowing Apple to keep some money. I would actually think that a higher amount would be warranted, since an author would set the price of an eBook to maximise profit taking into account the cannibalisation of printed book sales, while the scammers didn't.

.

I have a cousin who is living in China finishing his teaching degree abroad. Trust me China has no respect for written work. When he needs a book for his students he goes to a copier and prints it. If he needs a new book he goes online and downloads a copy of it and uses it. There are no copy write laws.

Thats why I say this lawsuit is complete BS.

I do agree with you the max they should get is the 70% split of the sold work, if any compensation at all is received.

raptorstv
Dec 29, 2012, 12:22 PM
Wow China's government is so corrupt, US Govt better be standing up for Apple

Maxx Power
Dec 29, 2012, 01:39 PM
I have a cousin who is living in China finishing his teaching degree abroad. Trust me China has no respect for written work. When he needs a book for his students he goes to a copier and prints it. If he needs a new book he goes online and downloads a copy of it and uses it. There are no copy write laws.

Same thing here in NA. I don't see it being any different for college/university students here. There are TONS of photocopy shops around campus for a reason, and LOTS of those shops will print you a popular text book if you ask for it. How many students honestly can afford several hundred dollar textbooks without familial support? Now-a-days, the combined threat of expensive schooling costs, working extra jobs and managing class/student life puts many students on great despair and depression. There are many typical peer-support groups on campus to help students deal with depression, academic burn-out and even suicidal tendencies. When I was in my undergrad, I didn't care at all about the bundled CDs, glossy paper and hard covers, give me an international copy from eBay for 5 bucks, I'll learn what is necessary. The publishers are constantly changing the revisions of the textbooks year to year, in the hopes that each year, the students will HAVE to buy a new copy. Has basic chemistry/biology/calculus really changed that much each year? The occasional 2nd hand book for real cheap does help as well when the editions do not change too much. You can also just pirate books in large packs from the internet and print it. And for licensing, we STILL do not have enough software licenses on campus for even basic tasks like teaching. Requests to have more licenses are met with red-tape, regulation, and administration retardation. The provided computers have limited hours, not to mention sharing between different classes. You can VPN, but only for data, not application.

One of the most popular recent additions to the campus life is the food bank. Between saving money for books and getting some decent food, I think the answer is clear.

The point is, media conglomerates makes money from selling media, replicas of the same information over and over. At some point of time, the profit incentive of business starts to encroach on the well being of individuals or becomes unworthy of their market value. I think that point is determined on a per-person and per-income basis; no law can change your perception of this.

As for textbooks, I rather like the idea of new, open-textbooks that are fundamentally free. Crafted by those with no other intentions in mind like profit, these textbooks are absolutely perfect for students. MIT also has something interesting: entire online archives of courses with free lecture notes, exams, assignments and video lectures. This should be the way of the future.

mrsir2009
Dec 29, 2012, 01:54 PM
And everybody will have their own car for free, while I bought it for money!

Image (http://img252.imageshack.us/img252/4830/unacceptable.png)

:rolleyes:

But in five, ten, twenty years... The public will still expect new, more advanced cars, won't they? And who's going to build and manafacture them for free?

firewood
Dec 29, 2012, 01:57 PM
Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.

Which, if it started to happen to computer and car companies when PCs first came out, would have stopped these companies from investing in new designs (why spend billions in R&D when they would only sell one car, which would then get duplicated). So have fun duplicating some 30 year old PC or car in your world, instead of having the new one you have now.

Idiot thief (from your own kid's future products).

firewood
Dec 29, 2012, 02:13 PM
All my students got their degrees with the help of pirated software.

Various gangsters, mobsters, war lords, and people like Bernie Madoff have also contributed to charities that build hospitals and pay for medical student scholarships. I'm sure that justifies their all activities, and you would want more people to emulate them. :eek:

Saladinos
Dec 29, 2012, 03:22 PM
So by that logic, Google could be sued to the grave over Youtube in China.

... do they allow Youtube in China?

----------

But in five, ten, twenty years... The public will still expect new, more advanced cars, won't they? And who's going to build and manafacture them for free?

Technically it could work if all the workers needs were also provided for free. Are you telling me motivation to succeed would stop if there was equality? I don't believe that.

The problem is that you'd need the whole world (or at least the majority of it) to be part of it. You can't be a communist island interfacing with a world of capitalists.

Luckily, Marx saw communism not as a political ideology spouted by a few, but a historical inevitability that would spontaneously embraced by the masses of the world.

The huge anti-capitalist feeling right now tends to support that. The invention of the stock market might have delayed its onset, but people are becoming ever more aware of just how exploited they are.

Saladinos
Dec 29, 2012, 03:33 PM
Would it be right for him to manufacture counterfeit patented drugs? Yes of course! Except, no, because that devalues those drugs, jeopardising the drug company's revenue and threatening future research. At the very least, the availability of free versions, constricts the available market for the legitimate version, causing the producers to increase the price to cover the fixed cost of development. If you encourage counterfeiting your ultimate scenarios are either a two tier system, where some doctors have unlimited free drugs, and some have constrained expensive drugs, which is horribly unfair on patients, or a utopian free-for-all followed by a rapid collapse in the development of new treatments. If one or two guys quietly do this without a fuss, the end scenarios are unlikely to come true, although harm is still done. If people on the Internet, reaching audiences of millions actually vociferously advocate this kind of thing, then what's the stop it ending every badly for us all?

Don't even try to defend the pharmaceutical industry. It's a despicable trade whose business-people deserve nothing less than damnation.

gnasher729
Dec 29, 2012, 03:34 PM
I do agree with you the max they should get is the 70% split of the sold work, if any compensation at all is received.

In that case you got me completely wrong. The minimum they should get is the 70% split, because that is what every copyright holder gets paid by Apple. But that minimum could be increased for at least two reasons:

1. Apple has no valid contract that says Apple can keep 30%.

2. It is obvious that sales of eBooks will reduce sales of the printed book (and sales through Apple will reduce sales through Amazon and so on) to some degree, and the more eBooks you sell through Apple, the more sales you will lose elsewhere. It is also obvious that by offering a lower price you will make more sales, and there will be some price point that gives maximum profit. The copyright holder will set the price not to maximize the profit from eBooks sold through Apple, but the total profit. The scammer, on the other hand, doesn't care about profits from other sources. So the price set by the scammer will usually damage the total profits of the copyright holder from all sources. Imagine a scammer puts Microsoft Office on the app store and sells it for $5. Millions buy a copy. Do you think Microsoft would be happy if Apple pays them $3.50 or $5 per copy?

Saladinos
Dec 29, 2012, 03:52 PM
Don't be stupid, Apple pays out for this, then sues whoever submitted the apps/books for compensation. Simple legal processes taking place. Apple probably aren't troubled by this at all.

It sets a dangerous precedent. It means Apple are liable for the content on the store. That might be potentially workable since Apple approves all the content on the stores, but it exposes them to potentially huge damages should somebody upload something the reviewer doesn't immediately recognise as an infringement of somebody's IP.

There are decades of enforceable IP registered all over the world. It includes books and songs and movies and more, in every country those are protected. On the other hand, Apple can only realistically have so many reviewers.

The real danger here is to Google, who don't have an approval mechanism. There's a huge amount of IP infringement on the Play store.

The way Google tackles this at the moment is the same way they do with Youtube (see Viacom vs Youtube) - copyright holders have to notify the company and it will take the offending content down, but it isn't liable for any actual infringement that occurred. The case has had a bit of a back-and-forth, but most of the modern internet depends on that ruling essentially staying.

MacinDoc
Dec 30, 2012, 12:29 AM
Piracy is the equivalent of stealing a car that duplicates itself when it gets stolen.
And now there are two cars. The horror. :eek:
And if a company spends $500 million designing, developing and building that car, and after one person buys that car, and everyone else steals their own copy, how does the car builder get its money back for the design and production of that car? Pirating intellectual material may not deprive the owner of the material, but it does deprive the owner of the potential market for that material. Similarly, if everyone pirated books, then authors would make no money writing them, and before you know it, nobody would be writing books any more.

MacinDoc
Dec 30, 2012, 12:40 AM
It sets a dangerous precedent. It means Apple are liable for the content on the store. That might be potentially workable since Apple approves all the content on the stores, but it exposes them to potentially huge damages should somebody upload something the reviewer doesn't immediately recognise as an infringement of somebody's IP.

There are decades of enforceable IP registered all over the world. It includes books and songs and movies and more, in every country those are protected. On the other hand, Apple can only realistically have so many reviewers.

The real danger here is to Google, who don't have an approval mechanism. There's a huge amount of IP infringement on the Play store.

The way Google tackles this at the moment is the same way they do with Youtube (see Viacom vs Youtube) - copyright holders have to notify the company and it will take the offending content down, but it isn't liable for any actual infringement that occurred. The case has had a bit of a back-and-forth, but most of the modern internet depends on that ruling essentially staying.
The biggest risk revolves around Apple being sued not for the content of the store, but for what that content was used for. Since everyone on this forum (well, at least one or two of you) loves car analogies, this is a bit like suing Chevrolet because one of its vehicles was used to commit a crime. Or a more precise analogy would be suing Amazon because the content of a book it sold contained material that its author had stolen from someone else's book.

Cartaphilus
Dec 30, 2012, 01:09 AM
There is nothing unreasonable about a legal system that makes the retailer responsible without fault for infringement by the goods he sells. The retailer is most often easier to find, is more often solvent, and the retailer will have an incentive to impose an indemnification agreement with his suppliers, secured by insurance, a bond, a holdback, or a third-party escrow of the payments due the supplier. A viable economic arrangement would likely evolve to balance the equities.

And, of course, enterprises which can't or won't adapt to Chinese law are perfectly free to avoid doing business there. I'm sure the rules were explained by competent local counsel to Apple's lawyers and managers who could do math. The profits offered by the enormous Chinese market dwarf the occasional cost of patching it up with some holder of IP rights.

Frankly, I have much more respect for Chinese legal system than for the people posting their blanket disdain for intellectual property rights. I'm hoping, and suspecting, that they're mostly just kids who were raised by wolves. Eventually they will understand that people have rights enforced by society as a whole not only to foster invention, but to prevent thieves from being hunted down by victims who are more likely to impose more than a fine and a stern talking to. There are plenty of countries where IP rights are ignored; every one of them suffers from poverty, lack of technology, and either an unstable or a dictatorial government--sometimes both. In their defense, though, I understand they have cheap beer.

gnasher729
Dec 30, 2012, 11:37 AM
It sets a dangerous precedent. It means Apple are liable for the content on the store. That might be potentially workable since Apple approves all the content on the stores, but it exposes them to potentially huge damages should somebody upload something the reviewer doesn't immediately recognise as an infringement of somebody's IP.

There are two ways to fix this: One is by not having excessive penalties or having no penalties at all - in this case it is clear that Apple had not intended to infringe anyone's copyright but was tricked into doing so. Penalties should only be applied to the scammers who submitted someone else's work. The other is for Apple (or anyone in a similar position) to make sure that they know who they are dealing with, so if anything goes wrong they have someone to take to court as well.

Saladinos
Dec 31, 2012, 08:19 AM
There are two ways to fix this: One is by not having excessive penalties or having no penalties at all - in this case it is clear that Apple had not intended to infringe anyone's copyright but was tricked into doing so. Penalties should only be applied to the scammers who submitted someone else's work. The other is for Apple (or anyone in a similar position) to make sure that they know who they are dealing with, so if anything goes wrong they have someone to take to court as well.

I actually thought that this was the whole point of the iPhone developer program - that if your app is malicious, Apple can use the card you paid the developer fee with to identify you.

I'm not sure why they're not handing over the addresses of the developers and asking the rights holders to sort it out with them (or maybe they did and the Chinese court just didn't accept that).

gnasher729
Dec 31, 2012, 11:50 AM
I actually thought that this was the whole point of the iPhone developer program - that if your app is malicious, Apple can use the card you paid the developer fee with to identify you.

I'm not sure why they're not handing over the addresses of the developers and asking the rights holders to sort it out with them (or maybe they did and the Chinese court just didn't accept that).

It's quite common that a person who was wronged, or someone who is owed money, finds several people or companies that could be liable, and then has a choice to sue any or all of them. Check the wikipedia article on "joint and several liability" for some rather horrible ways this can turn out in the USA.

JHankwitz
Jan 2, 2013, 11:43 AM
What books? What's the title?

chirpie
Jan 3, 2013, 09:57 AM
In a country where I live, for $1 you could buy a 1 litre bottle of beer.
For $100, you could buy 100 bottles, or 5 boxes of beer.
I cannot imagine that someone would follow your advice.

Pfft. To get a good beer here, I need at least 2 bucks for a small bottle to get something good like a Little Sumpin' Sumpin' ale, or $2.50 a small bottle for something killer like a Tank 7.

Having said that, how much piracy is enough? Where do we draw the line and why? Half of the copies in circulation? Ninety percent? Or how about what the set price is supposed to be? Are you going to set the bar of who's poor enough to get it for free and who's rich enough?

Of course not. It's silly. We didn't create the product therefore we do not choose what is done with it. Any semantics dancing one does beyond that makes me roll my eyes as incredulously as I can muster. :-)

Lil Chillbil
Jan 3, 2013, 09:23 PM
Its official china owns us