So does password sharing but people who participate in letting friends and family have their login credentials don't seem to mind. Funny how some people think one is stealing but the other isn't.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Blocks iTorrent App From EU Alternative App Marketplace
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They both are stealing.
You said the people letting friends and family use their password don’t seem to mind? Yes those are the people stealing. Of course they don’t mind. Do you think the people stealing software through torrent mind?
Thieves don’t mind the fact that they are stealing. It’s the people who they steal from that mind.
But if you were never going to pay for it in the first place, then there is no loss and no victim. A victimless crime.
Read the license you use to purchase the music. It expressly forbids you to distribute the song.
You don’t own the song in any sense. You simply pay for a license to listen to it during your own life time.
No, the EU regulators AND EU developers absolutely want Apple to still control the third party stores as they Apple to be in a position to shut down anything that would adversely impact their ability to continue to make big money from iOS users. It was never about escaping Apple’s control.
Thieves don’t seem to mind being thieves. That’s not so surprising.
Would you mind sharing your iCloud login details?
No, obvs, why? Because you own the content and you have a right to say who gets access.
There’s a kill switch because it’s allowed for in the DMA. They could have absolutely cut that part out, but the developers in the EU would rather NOT have their paid apps easily available for free on a random website like they are for Android.
You missed my point -- some people who do participate in password sharing because they feel entitled to do so, also think that downloading movies, music and software from torrent sites IS illegal.
If I'm the one downloading it, I'm not distributing it. I'm taking, not giving. The people who are seeding the stuff are distributing.
This is Silly. Apple has zero rights to try and dictate what an Alternative Store can offer. If it's legal in the EU to make the app it should be available. Apple has already told people to NOT use alternative stores as they can have bad players in that segment. If a user wants to install a Torrent client and download stuff and it infects and compromises the iPhone than oh well. You knew the risks and you opted to install something Apple said not to.
This is overreach by apple and it won't stop with torrents they will slowly try to control what apps can be installed and make up bogus reasons for it to not be allowed and stall / finically drain people to their will.
This is overreach by apple and it won't stop with torrents they will slowly try to control what apps can be installed and make up bogus reasons for it to not be allowed and stall / finically drain people to their will.
This is just Apple being Apple showing the usual pettiness and malicious compliance where they got kicked their balls.
It’s an interesting one here because ultimately Apple have the ability to stop an app so therefore they are complicit in any wrong doing an app may facilitate. When you look at it from a legal point of view.
So perhaps Apple have no real choice in doing this?
Which makes you think, if only Apple can sign apps on iOS devices there is no real complete freedom no matter how many separate app stores their are right?
So perhaps Apple have no real choice in doing this?
Which makes you think, if only Apple can sign apps on iOS devices there is no real complete freedom no matter how many separate app stores their are right?
Lawyer site: https://federal-lawyer.com/the-ultimate-guide-to-the-federal-intellectual-property-theft-statutes/
"But, multiple federal statutes impose criminal penalties for intellectual property theft, and prosecution under these statutes can lead to substantial fines and prison terms."
.gov site with the headline "Intellectual Property Theft": https://bjs.ojp.gov/library/publications/intellectual-property-theft
It's just...right there.
From a recent report, there are tens of thousands of apps that have been removed from the App Store in the last year. Now, did Apple send out a press release every time an app was removed detailing why? No. In addition, the folks that did whatever improper thing they did KNOW what they were trying to do and generally don’t want to bring attention to themselves.
Now, what if you’re a developer and you want to bring attention to the fact that your app exists. Well, just do something you KNOW Apple will reject (and you know Apple won’t say anything about it as that is their MO) and you claim that Apple’s not telling you anything. Get your name and app communicated ALL over the internet by folks that will just grab onto anything Apple and signal boost it. Then, you fix whatever it was, claim that “Apple said it was a mistake”, resubmit it and everyone sees you as tiny David winning over big Goliath and you get more attention to you and your app as the information gets re-boosted periodically. There’s no downside for the developer.
Of course what’s more likely is the dev knows what they did and are hoping that Apple will stay mum as they normally do, and they can just say Apple unfairly targeted them. Or, maybe they’re tired of developing a free app for folks that keep demanding more and more from them but they don’t want to say “they’re done” because they’re trying to avoid the personal attacks and death threats they’d get from folks that were happy using their free labor.
Things have changed and buying isn’t owning anymore it's just the illusion of it. You thought you owned a video game you bought? think again because all it takes is an retroactive update to the terms and services (e.g. Ubisoft) to take that ownership away.
So if I steal something, but I was never going to buy it that makes it a victimless crime? I’m not sure how that logic works
Well, that’s just public perception and not reality. It’s just like some people think that if you eat grapes in the produce section at a grocery store, it’s not shoplifting. It’s shoplifting.
Hm! Very interesting, here.
This is actually a case where I would expect that EU devs and the regulators would request Apple to do what they did.Sure, but one would consider that moderation to be the responsibility of that 3rd party store (and of course the publisher/developer). Not Apple.
These are lawyers that make money from such lawsuits.
It is well known that the term "theft" has been pirated by them to (colloquially) portray copyright infringement.
...and once you look at these statutes (through the links provided, for instance), there's no mention of "theft" or "stealing" in that section of U.S. code.
It is copyright "infringement".
The law also has a title about embezzlement and theft - which does not contain the provisions for copyright infringement.
The bold heading for a 2004 10-page Bureau of Justice Statistics report does legally prove the point.
It's right there to disprove claims that copyright infringement is "theft".
Please quote the court, docket number, and relevant lines in the briefing where that phrase was used.
But I'll say again. This app is not piracy, it is not pirated, and it is not illegal. Why is Apple getting in the middle of it?
Hell, it's not even in their store!
Piracy also isn't morally in the same category as theft. As in, if I steal someone's lunch, they no longer have their lunch. If you copy someone's song, they still have their song.
So what about people who buy digital goods online and then the storefront (Amazon, Apple, Google) take it away because they lost the distribution rights to the item? That's arguably closer to theft, because someone is being denied the right to use something they legally paid for.
The recently passed DMA certainly DOES give Apple the rights to dictate what an Alternate Store offers AND the criteria for removing content.
https://developer.apple.com/security/complying-with-the-dma.pdf
(Providing the link so that no one has to depend on anyone providing cut and paste of a specific unrelated passage.
Anyone that wants to see under what circumstances the DMA anllows Apple the ability to remove apps can check the document, search for the word “remove” and you’ll be able to review those circumstances.)My expectation is that some activity occurred with that app that triggered the requirement for Apple to remove the app. The dev likely will never say, but some enterprising internetters will likely discover what it is.
Last edited: