Many companies do. A few I’ve worked for (not Apple) actually ask employees to report anywhere their logo or content shows up to legal for review. In some cases, it was pre=approved. In many, it was not and was removed.
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 Issues Takedown Order for Popular YouTube Channel That Archived WWDC Keynotes
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yes. Paying for the right marketing in the right place at the right time, is more profitable than some random YouTube videos that people thing have marketing value.
Nobody can know their rational 100% unless it comes from the horses mouth. Which means you can’t say it’s a wrong decision in a vacuum and I can’t say it’s a right decision in a vacuum. The fact of the matter is that the YouTube channel violated copyright.
Yes, they are clearly in the right.
A total of 15,548,708 views. Which means revenue should be $50-100,000.
But that’s hardly the point. It’s not theirs to make the money. I remember years ago getting a strike for putting a 15 second clip of a crash in Le Tour de France. Totally not monetised, but breach of copyright nonetheless.
It’s about ownership.
Yes, a LOT of us think that people should be able to make copies and distribute copyrighted materials *as long as we don't make a profit* out of it. That's what people used to do with cassettes. A lot of people do it in digital form nowadays. And that is *great*.
Copyright laws are an onerous imposition of the public by corporations.
The flaw with that argument is that whilst a person may not make a profit, they are taking profits from those who created the material. Not unlike Torrenting the latest blockbuster movie.
But in this instance, it would have created some kind of ads profit to the YouTuber and Google.
Leave mathematics out of this! Math is beautiful, pure and not at all evil.
Yeah, so about $5k a year, those views are spread out over ten years, it is about ownership, I'm just saying this is more than likely not a monetary issue, and for the record the Youtube site I linked to is not the one in question, at least I think it is not, but anyway to each his own, certainly Apple has the right, I just don't get the strategy, and vis a vis the Tour de France video, another example, for a non fan such as myself, any of those videos just brings more interest to a non or casual fan, in cases such as those, I think the sporting league is clueless.
I think you are confusing copyright with trademarks. They generally need to go after similar trademarks. Apple could look the other way on copyright without losing ownership.
Has to make you laugh all those on Apple's side saying they have the right to protect their copyright. Shame Apple do not apply this same logic to the many many Chinese companies who blatantly copy Apple products and items being in breach of Apple's copyright.
True. About 5k a year. Probably bought him a new iPhone and Macbook every year! 😃
I don’t get the strategy either, but is suspect it’s not really a strategy rather than protecting rights no matter what it is. Jobs was crazy about protecting their copyright. He tried to copyright the word "App". People say Apple have lost the Jobs DNA, but this is yet another example showing it hasn’t.
How do they go about doing that? I have no doubt they do as much as they can, but they have more copyright suits against them than for, I’d suggest. They lost the right to the name iPhone to a handbag company.
The handbag case is irrelevant, that was a trademark dispute, not a copyright dispute.
Apple: Watch our exiting new presentation! Or perhaps see the historic presentations of our revolitionary products! We are proud of our achievemts and history.
Also Apple: Take it the f*** down you stupid pleb! Who the f*** gave you permission, huh?
What a company. It's a user-prison with ambitions of expansion.
Also Apple: Take it the f*** down you stupid pleb! Who the f*** gave you permission, huh?
What a company. It's a user-prison with ambitions of expansion.
What’s your point? It’s still a suit on ownership. Whether it’s intellectual or an image. In fact, there are crossovers where these videos are potentially misleading people into believing there is an affiliation with Apple, which fits the trademark brief. Hardly irrelevant.
Probably not if the channel is monetizing Apple's videos through normal YT ad/views revenue. Apple may still say its ok, or they may put the videos on aTV, but what we are seeing right now is YouTube's automated process which was activated by an external law firm trying to bill some hours.
But let this be a lesson to everyone who believes streaming is superior to locally stored media.
Last edited:
Things that make you go 'meh'.
aTV only has a few of the most recent videos; a nefarious TC would have all his videos on there. There are more videos, including SJ videos, on Apple Podcasts. There are also plenty of old Apple videos scattered around YouTube which contradicts the idea that this is a concerted effort by TC to eradicate memories of SJ.
Yes. “Power tends to corrupt” and it also applies in the commercial world.
Sorry to say you're remembering it wrong and sorry you're suppressing a mild loathing for the company.
To me the company is much better in many ways since 2011. As a consequence of growing up and being more mature Apple had to change.
I disagree. How can lawyers act on Appel’s behalf without approval from ceo or the board?
Doesn’t make any business sense at all.
I did the same things as well regarding transition announcements, funny how similar each transition announcement is.
Well this is the first time we’ve seen this regarding Apple videos. Give it time to see if it is/isn’t a concentrated effort for video take downs to be a concentrated effort. Give it time.