Apple Hit With $530,000 Chinese Lawsuit Over Unauthorized Sales of Animated Films - Page 4 - MacRumors Forums
Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Mar 31, 2013, 06:24 PM   #76
Tech198
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Australia, Perth
Let the good times roll..


Apple must REALLY love dealing with China, since half the time they get in trouble with them over lawsuits anyway.

(umm.. so this is where all the moneys going.. I thought i was a bit short.)
__________________
13" MBP-R, i5, 256Gig SDD, 8 Gig Ram, Apple TV (3rd-Gen.), iPhone 5S 16Gig, iPad (4th-Gen.) 16Gig, Mac Mini 2.3Ghz i7, 1TB HD

"There are no stupid questions, just stupid people."
Tech198 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2013, 07:13 PM   #77
dernhelm
macrumors 68000
 
dernhelm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: middle earth
This is hysterical. What's next? North Korea complaining about other countries threatening them?

BTW - "Hit" is the wrong term for a $530,000 lawsuit against Apple. Tapped is more like it. "Was that a feather that landed on me?"
__________________
Five exclamation marks, the sure sign of an insane mind. --Terry Pratchett
dernhelm is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Mar 31, 2013, 10:06 PM   #78
RoboCop001
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Toronto, Canada
Quote:
Originally Posted by sir1963nz View Post
The oil companies make profit from every crime involving a car, be that a bank heist, car jacking, murder or what ever. Should wee seek compensation from the oil companies because they have deep pockets too ?[COLOR="#808080"]
I'm not sure I understand your connection.

Apple is selling something that's copyrighted. The app is the thing in question, not what someone does with the app.

The oil company isn't selling something illegal or copyrighted, regardless of what the gas is used for. To go further, you could say any crime involving a stabbing with a knife should hold the knife company responsible. But I still don't believe it's the same thing as Apple selling copyrighted material.

The product is the subject in question, not the actions involving the product.
RoboCop001 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 10:15 AM   #79
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by HMI View Post
1) There is nothing "alleged" about this. They ARE coming over, and have been for many, many decades, and have completely changed the payscale value of labor as-well-as the available job opportunities for legal citizens. They also receive free help with medical and child education needs.
All true. And the ones who receive the most benefit from this phenomenon are not the downtrodden immigrants slaving away for sub-minimum wage. Instead, the ones who benefit are the employers, like the Agribusiness interests. They benefit from a huge army of un- and under-employed. Such a situation is crucial in their efforts to lower labor costs.

Don't lose sight of the real reasons why no credible steps are being taken to do anything about the situation.

----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Medic311 View Post
10 years from now i am curious to know where Apple will be making their products
Just look at Sony. They too once were at the top. And Apple is making some of the same mistakes that Sony made.
iGrip is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 05:06 PM   #80
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
Apple sells pirated movies, and your attitude is "It's not their fault"?

IMO, a vendor is responsible if it sells pirated movies. And I'm confident that in most universes, that is true.[COLOR="#808080"]


You should probably sue hard drive manufactures because all their devices contain 99% of all pirated content. Sue the internet for providing a means of transfer. Sue electric plants because 100% of all pirates use electricity to pirate. Sorry but China needs to go after the company that submitted the app and/or ask apple to simply remove the app from the store.

Otherwise this is the equivalent of suing Apple because someone used safari to visit a website that contains pirated media.
nzalog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 1, 2013, 09:44 PM   #81
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzalog View Post


You should probably sue hard drive manufactures because all their devices contain 99% of all pirated content.
If they were sold containing pirated content, maybe -
If I were the owner of the copyright.

But given that neither of these factors is present, the suggestion is nothing short of inane.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 03:50 AM   #82
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
If they were sold containing pirated content, maybe -
If I were the owner of the copyright.

But given that neither of these factors is present, the suggestion is nothing short of inane.
Exactly so did you miss this part? " it appears that the issue relates to the films being made available through third-party App Store apps"

If an application connects to a web page or remote server that might stream or download copyrighted material, how is that under Apple's control? Again it's like suing Firefox for copyright infringement because users can use it that way if they go to the correct site.
nzalog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 08:31 AM   #83
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzalog View Post
Exactly so did you miss this part? " it appears that the issue relates to the films being made available through third-party App Store apps"

If an application connects to a web page or remote server that might stream or download copyrighted material, how is that under Apple's control? Again it's like suing Firefox for copyright infringement because users can use it that way if they go to the correct site.
How do you conclude that the application connects to a web page or remote server that might stream or download copyrighted material?

Many of the crappy apps that Apple sells to its customers are just books and other copyrighted content wrapped up with an app wrapper.

And even if the app does not have the content within it, but instead retreives it on command, what difference does that make? If Apple sells an app called "Argo" which retreives a pirated version of the movie, how is Apple less to blame than if it sells an app which contains the movie?

ISTM that in both cases Apple is selling a pirated movie.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 11:32 AM   #84
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
How do you conclude that the application connects to a web page or remote server that might stream or download copyrighted material?

Many of the crappy apps that Apple sells to its customers are just books and other copyrighted content wrapped up with an app wrapper.

And even if the app does not have the content within it, but instead retreives it on command, what difference does that make? If Apple sells an app called "Argo" which retreives a pirated version of the movie, how is Apple less to blame than if it sells an app which contains the movie?

ISTM that in both cases Apple is selling a pirated movie.
Because Apple doesn't like pirating just as much as others, they sell media... themselves. They don't want trouble with copyright holders.

I've never seen Apple doing shady things in the App store the circumvent piracy laws. Please post a source or a real example. It's generally developer that try to circumvent Apple.

Either way the proper course of action is to ask Apple to pull the app and then go after the developer. Just like youtube gets video's pulled on demand... This is not the case it's just someone trying to make a buck.

Only way I could say you are right is if this was a movie in the iTunes store that was available for rent or purchase, or if apple made the App that was being sold and not a third party.
nzalog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 12:30 PM   #85
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzalog View Post

Either way the proper course of action is to ask Apple to pull the app and then go after the developer.
How about instead you demand that Apple cease and desist selling pirated copies of your work, and then go after Apple and its partner?
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 12:58 PM   #86
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
How about instead you demand that Apple cease and desist selling pirated copies of your work, and then go after Apple and its partner?
Because it's like suing the internet when people use it for illegal activities, but apparently people don't understand that.

I highly doubt the movie is embedded into the App.

While we're at it let's sue car manufacturer for selling a car to the guy who killed someone while driving drunk. Let's sue the gun manufacture because some guy used a gun to murder someone. Lets sue the electric company because someone's kid was electrocuted when mom didn't baby proof her outlets.

See the pattern there? One party provides a legal service while the other is responsible for the crime.

This is why we can't have nice things... but sure sue them both and unless the judge is a fukwad that doesn't understand tech, they will just ask apple to pull the App (which it probably would have done by now).

Last edited by nzalog; Apr 2, 2013 at 01:04 PM.
nzalog is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 09:49 PM   #87
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzalog View Post
Because it's like suing the internet when people use it for illegal activities, but apparently people don't understand that.
No, it is like suing Wall Mart if they sell pirated copies of your movie, but apparently you don't understand that.

The real distinction you seem to miss is that the App Store is curated. Apple picks and chooses some products to sell, while rejecting others. They are not a common carrier who is bound to serve all comers. They are a retailer who is fussy and particular about what it sells.

Apple ain't no victim. They are big boys.
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 11:00 PM   #88
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
No, it is like suing Wall Mart if they sell pirated copies of your movie, but apparently you don't understand that.

The real distinction you seem to miss is that the App Store is curated. Apple picks and chooses some products to sell, while rejecting others. They are not a common carrier who is bound to serve all comers. They are a retailer who is fussy and particular about what it sells.

Apple ain't no victim. They are big boys.
-_- Oh my...

I give up, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

So take a look a site called URL redacted

They host movies... now tell me who do we sue I sell an app that can connect to this site aka "a web browser" or even an app the connects exclusively to that site? Keep in mine this site could start off as anything they could pretend to be a dating site and when apple approves the App they can switch the content to pirated media. So where lie the responsibility?

Personally if i was you, I'd sue the internets, interwebs, youtubz, all the LOLcats... but only as a start. After that I'd probably blame Obama and go after Dell and HP for selling servers of mass copyright infringement.

Anyways don't put too much though into your next response (lol who am i kidding I don't think you put much into any of them) becuase I don't plan on replying to more dribble.

Last edited by stridemat; Apr 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Removed URL
nzalog is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 2, 2013, 11:03 PM   #89
damir00
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Welcome to Business in China.

Same-old, same-old.
damir00 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 12:37 AM   #90
RoastingPig
macrumors 65816
 
RoastingPig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: SoCal
Send a message via AIM to RoastingPig
thats chump change
__________________
Mac Pro 6 Core D700*, Retina 13 256gb/8gb 5000
RoastingPig is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 10:30 AM   #91
iGrip
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Send a message via ICQ to iGrip Send a message via AIM to iGrip Send a message via MSN to iGrip Send a message via Yahoo to iGrip Send a message via Skype™ to iGrip
Quote:
Originally Posted by nzalog View Post
-_- Oh my...

I give up, you have absolutely no clue what you are talking about.

So take a look a site called URL redcated

They host movies... now tell me who do we sue I sell an app that can connect to this site aka "a web browser"
But without any real information that this was the setup that Apple was selling to people, you nevertheless conclude that it is precisely what was happening here.

Right?

Last edited by stridemat; Apr 3, 2013 at 12:23 PM. Reason: Updated quote
iGrip is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 3, 2013, 01:32 PM   #92
nzalog
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Mountain View, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by iGrip View Post
But without any real information that this was the setup that Apple was selling to people, you nevertheless conclude that it is precisely what was happening here.

Right?
But assuming that someone stuck 100mb to 4GB video file in an app is more likely. Just stop responding...
nzalog is offline   1 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Apple Hit With Class-Action Lawsuit Over Failing 27" iMac Displays MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 454 Feb 10, 2014 09:29 AM
Chinese Woman Electrocuted by iPhone 4 Likely Used Unauthorized Charger MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 196 Jul 23, 2013 11:43 AM
T-Mobile USA's iPhone 5 Sales Hit 500,000 Units MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 92 May 10, 2013 07:39 AM
Apple Hit with $368 Million Judgment in VPN Patent Lawsuit from VirnetX MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 121 Apr 5, 2013 03:41 PM
Apple Hit with 'Planned Obsolescence' Lawsuit in Brazil over Fourth-Generation iPad MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 357 Feb 28, 2013 10:07 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:01 AM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC