Pirated App Sold On Mac App Store 334
iDuck writes "When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts game, Lugaru HD, on the Mac App store, they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double. A counterfeit version of the software is currently available on the app store at a much lower price point under the name Lugaru. The best bit: as yet Apple have not responded to Wolfire's emails to rectify the situation. While the source to the game was GPLed, 'the license made it very clear that the authors retained all rights to the assets, characters, and everything else aside from the code itself.'"
and in related news (Score:4, Funny)
the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.
FBI Not As Bad As DHS/ICE (Score:4, Informative)
the FBI has seized the apple.com domain name for facilitating piracy.
I think you mean DHS's ICE division [ice.gov]. They're the guys running around seizing domain names for little to no reason [slashdot.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You work for the DRDs? The DRDs work for Moya!
Did Slashdot go retarded today? (Score:5, Informative)
I've seen too many stupid comments about this today and yesterday, so I'm going to clarify a few points:
1. The SOURCE CODE to the EXECUTABLE was released as GPL.
2. GPL DOES, in fact, allow you to sell your build of that executable.
3. While they did distribute the assets (textures, models, sound, etc.) with the source code, those assets WERE NOT distributed via GPL.
4. GPL is for source code, not assets. For that, you're looking at a creative commons type license for something similar.
5. The assets were distributed with a "you can do anything BUT SELL IT" license
Meaning, as they charge $2.00 for it, Lugaru (non HD) is in blatant copyright violation. Never mind, using the name is probably a blatant trademark violation.
I think a lot of games (especially indie type titles) could benefit from going open source, while keeping tight hold on their assets. Sell the textures, models, and sounds, and give the source away. If someone wants to "steal" your game, they're going to have to build the rest themselves from scratch. It would help both in keeping tiny titles like that away from falling into the abandonware pit (especially if it's incompatible with modern OS's), and helping aspiring game devs in understanding how game logic works.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
When you sync your phone, iPod, iPad, etc. the binary is cached on your hard drive. In theory you can copy that binary and redistribute it. It just isn't readily apparent to people.
And while Apple eventually kicked out VLC over the whole GPL debate, they have kept in apps like Wesnoth, which is also under a GPL license.
Re: (Score:2)
And even had VideoLAN been the ones to put it on the store, each individual developer holds the copyright to their work. So the "incident" would have been likely regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
No you can't. That binary would be copy-protected (and tied to your iPhone).
This is about Mac software, not iPhone software. It is tied to the Mac and the account, but that doesn't mean you can'y copy it, it just means doing so may not be very useful to you.
Mac App Store (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can fish out the binaries and send them to a friend. It's not a quick and obvious process, but it doesn't have to be to conform to the license. The binaries will be useless to the recipient, but that's OK under GPLv2. The FSF didn't approve of that dodge (known as Tivoization after the use of Linux on the Tivo), and created GPLv3. You can't have an iPhone app that's under GPLv3, or uses any GPLv3 components.
In what way is this different from the Tivo, which uses third-party GPLv2 software (Linux)
Re: (Score:2)
When you get an app from the App Store, you agree to terms such as "must only install on 5 devices". That term is an additional restriction beyond what the GPL contains. You are not allowed to add additional restrictions when redistributing software under the GPL. Since the developer cannot remove these extra terms, the App Store is not allowed to distribute software under the GPL.
Now, this is not a problem in the case of Lugaru HD, because the only person with standing to sue is the original developer (ass
Re: (Score:2)
Oh crap, my comments apply to the iPhone App Store, not the Mac App Store. I have no idea whether there are any GPL-related problems with the Mac App Store.
In short, forget I said anything.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with this is, once people have the code, stealing the assets is easier. Sure without the source you can make 1:1 copies of the assets, but you cannot remove the 'origin' then. And you cannot steal single assets then.
I'm currently in the process of building a freeware game with someone. The game will be free, but we'll also be selling a high quality soundtrack (with bonus tracks) from the game. If people could rip the music from the game the selling of the soundtrack will be a lot tougher. I'm po
Re: (Score:2)
Strictly speaking, the models and thing necessary to run an app are usually included with the license for the source. In this case though the developers opted not to do that, which is their right. And personally, I think that it's a reasonable compromise given that the main interest people had was in the ability to use the engine, patch bugs in the future and port the game to other platforms.
Re: (Score:2)
4. GPL is for source code, not assets. For that, you're looking at a creative commons type license for something similar.
It's quite reasonable that assets are considered part of the source code for a program. If a program is completely unusable without the assets, then those assets are essential data, and can be considered part of the source that gets compiled into a whole program.
To think otherwise would be deny the whole purpose of the GPL. There was no "creative commons" before the GPL, and it was expecting that the GPL covered everything needed to run the program. It is one work, a whole.
If you were to take some GPL sourc
Re: (Score:2)
So they're selling the GPL'd code and including the assets for free. It sounds like they just failed to make this clear.
In any event, a "you can do anything but sell it" license can't work, due to 17 USC 109:
"[T]he owner of a particular copy or phonorecord lawfully made under this title, or any person authorized by such owner, is entitled, without the authority of the copyright owner, to sell or otherwise dispose of the possession of that copy or phonorecord[.]" - 17 USC 109
You can make 50,000 copies of the
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Neither side in this story gets my sympathy.
Meaning that the person who sells an illegal version of the game, undercutting the business of the actual developers, and the person who gave away [most but not all] of his work for free so that others might learn from it and do cool things, are both equally evil/good? How fair-minded of you.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see either one (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Complain to the FBI (Score:3)
They'll confiscate Apple.com and put an end to this nonsense.
Re: (Score:2)
They'll confiscate Apple.com and put an end to this nonsense.
It's Immigration and Customs Enforcement that's been doing all the domain seizures for alleged copyright infringement, not the FBI. The only domains I've heard of the FBI seizing were ones involved in distributing child pornography.
Re: (Score:2)
And why would they do that when the infringing content isn't even on apple.com?
Interesting GPl issue (Score:2)
Not really Apple's fault or responsibility... (Score:2)
Now that I have your attention, let me explain that Apple (or any other retailer for that matter) can't be held responsible for unknowingly selling pirated software. With all the Apps that is in their inventory, you can't expect Apple to know intimate details for each and every one (eg. Didn't I see a similar game somewhere else?). Anyway now that the original authors have notified Apple, it's Apple responsibility to pull the questionable works off of their market until the matter is resolved.
Re: (Score:2)
You're exactly right. This is why we have DMCA safe harbor protections. The game publisher in question should not have sent a simple "email" to Apple. File a proper DMCA complaint and the app comes down immediately, no questions asked. If it doesn't, then (and only then) you have a suit against Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree. The issue is whether or not they're responding in a timely manner to the request.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, they can be, unless the DMCA safe harbor applies. See, for example, Fonovisa v. Cherry Auction. Apple both enables, and benefits from, this infringement.
Re: (Score:2)
So, Apple touts their App Store as a place where you can get software without the problems regular vendors suffer, by means of their careful screening process.
Unless they are making specific claims about confirming copyright, they're legally in the clear.
I wonder how careful that screening process actually is if it fails to detect basic theft.
Not theft, copyright and trademark infringement. Please learn the difference if you're going to be discussing these topics intelligently.
How long then until someone smuggles the first demonstration virus it into the App Store in order to show just how well that screening process actually works?
Likely not a virus, but someone will undoubtedly slip a trojan past the Mac App reviewers at some point. I'm not sure yet if Apple is applying their security frameworks to apps from the Mac app store. If not, hopefully they will soon and will be able to contain malware that slip
DMCA Takedown? (Score:2)
As much as everybody hates DMCA takedown notices around here, it seems like that would be the proper avenue for this sort of thing. It's certainly not an abuse of the DMCA in this case. Apple would likely respond relatively quickly so they don't lose their safe harbor.
"Assets" == "Intellectual Property" (Score:2, Insightful)
Really, this just highlights the hypocrisy of so many Slashdotters and FLOSS supporters of "file sharing".
Re: (Score:3)
Re:"Assets" == "Intellectual Property" (Score:5, Insightful)
The issue is that people seem to think that stealing shit for personal use is different than stealing it and selling it for crack money.
The large argument used against the RIAA here is a knee-jerk to their horrible inability to adapt to market and their abuse of the court systems. They are wrong in that. But people seem to want to argue that if someone (working under a marketing agent, etc, whatever the circumstance, indie or signed) puts in their time and effort to produce a work, record that work, refine that work, and publish that work, that then it should be okay for us to just take that work.
The premise here is that by either not buying that work or taking a copy, I'm not depriving you of anything: both actions are equivalent to you. The fallacy is that by either taking a copy or buying a copy, I'm gaining a specific benefit: I get a copy of your music. The exchange of work for value here is that I pay you for a value we agree on for the work, and you give me a copy of the work. This is the same exchange as I pay you a value I see as worth losing in money in exchange for, say, a tea pot, and you give me a teapot worth $x in raw materials + $y value added for your time making it == $z that I'm willing to pay to acquire it.
In either case, I might prefer the risk of not giving you any money for your work, but taking it anyway: I benefit, you don't. That's called stealing. Around here, people decide that if you lose some kind of asset, I've stolen from you; if you're no poorer than when you started, then apparently I've created wealth by making myself richer (I now have music I've stolen) without making someone else poorer (you haven't lost anything). This is a fallacy: the time investment hasn't paid off, and others who are actually purchasing are subsidizing the value I'm not (i.e. 300 people pay 33% more so that 100 people can steal it).
The truth of the matter is if nobody ever stepped in, iTunes wouldn't have gained momentum. Napster was becoming widely popular, easy to use by everyone, kids and old people who barely knew how to use a computer. It only shipped MP3 files, not videos (porn) or programs (viruses). Music of today would largely be available for free online. A few early adopters would spend gazillions on CDs, rip them, share them. I know this is an "overblown doomsday scenario" but think about how popular iTunes is: Napster almost filled that gap, for FREE. Napster is why MP3 players became popular in the first place.
There's stealing.
The OP is complaining that people use these arguments that "copying data for personal use" is not stealing when the RIAA is involved, but want to act like they know what they're talking about here after making gratuitous use of phrases like "Imaginary Property."
Re: (Score:2)
Why is it not wrong to redistribute the copyrighted assets? Because the assets aren't protected by the holy word of RMS [blessed be his beard], the GPL. In /. land, GPL is the truth and the whole of the truth and RMS [bbhb] its prophet.
Re: (Score:2)
It is wrong to take something and pretend you made it, when you did not.
Copyright in many parts of Europe has the concept of "moral rights" which are separate from the commercial rights, and often do not expire. The US copyright law concerns only commercial rights, so copyright debates in the US rarely discuss moral rights. Yet the moral rights seem rather more important than the commercial rights.
Tip of the iceberg... (Score:2)
Unfortunately, GPL developers are about to discover the pain that traditional copyright holders have been going through for years. As more and more people decide to leap on the App bandwagon, those lacking a certain moral fibre will simply take to mining GPL'd games and selling them, regardless of how the assets and associated data might be licensed.
I don't expect this will be the end of such stories, far from it.
I've only just today seen that I, myself, have had to issue a DMCA take down notice to Apple, o
Re: (Score:2)
While that guy who uploaded it was a dick, I'd recommend at least trying to sell it on there, even if you only get pocket change... The other guy thought it might sell obviously.
Apple App Store - No excuse (Score:2)
If there was ANY possible defense for this kind of extreme, totalitarian control and man
Re: (Score:3)
http://www.joystiq.com/2009/06/20/commodore64-iphone-app-finished-denied-by-apple/ [joystiq.com]
http://uneasysilence.com/archive/2008/09/13445/ [uneasysilence.com]
http://www.iphonefreak.com/2011/02/sony-reader-denied-app-store-debut.html [iphonefreak.com]
http://mobihealthnews.com/6932/interview-the-iphone-medical-app-denied-510k/ [mobihealthnews.com]
http://gizmodo.com/5611169/why-the-hell-did-apple-pull-camera%252B-from-the-app-store [gizmodo.com]
Google around, you'll find a million similar cases. Developers hear that their apps wil
Wrong about the best bit. (Score:2, Insightful)
They GPL'd and got cloned, but the best bit is the poster thinking it is somehow Apple's responsibility to fix baby's diapers. Managing your intellectual property is up to you, crafty open source software developers.
Liability Follows Control (Score:2)
Apple is now running a marketplace. It is exercising an enormous amount of control over what is sold in that marketplace. It has a financial interest in every item sold in that marketplace.
It is a lot like a consignment store.
If a consignment store sold stolen property, it would belegally responsible for its acts. I'm NOT saying they would be liable, but rather that they could be held liable and that the "I was only a consignment store" defense would fail.
Apple's need to control is okay within its platfo
Re: (Score:2)
If a consignment store sold stolen property, it would belegally responsible for its acts. I'm NOT saying they would be liable, but rather that they could be held liable and that the "I was only a consignment store" defense would fail.
Look up the terms: "innocent purchaser" and "bona fide purchaser". Sure such resellers have some responsibility for stolen goods, but not very much beyond returning the goods unless it can be demonstrated they knew the goods were stolen. Of course this is fairly irrelevant because we're not talking about theft, but copyright infringement. And that's a different set of laws entirely.
So on to the copyright issue, Apple is redistributing copyrighted material they were misled into thinking was licensed to the
Re:Liability Follows Control (Score:4, Informative)
unless your 'consignment' store is a pawn shop in Florida... if your house is broken into and you subsequently find your items in a pawn shop you must buy them from the pawn shop if you want them back - and the pawn shop is not liable
This is untrue in the vast majority of the country. Pawn shops in most states have a legal responsibility to actively try to prevent stolen items from being sold and, their possession of your property, regardless of is they paid for them, does not transfer legal ownership to them, since they paid someone who did not own the goods. In almost every state pawn shops have to return stolen goods to the rightful owner and eat the loss. The police generally confiscate goods for the investigation then return them to the original owner. If the police do not do this, some pawn shops will try to claim payment from you. This is when you go to small claims court or (if valuable enough) file suit against the pawn shop. They will lose if you can show the goods are in fact probably the ones stolen from you (you don't even need beyond a reasonable doubt for a civil case like this, just probable).
Why Apple? (Score:3)
Why do we even want Apple to respond? Do we really want Apple to police this? Just send your lawyer after this other "author".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
That they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double shortly after the release of the game. Not before, though. Before it was inexcusable ;).
It does sound awkward but factually it should be correct.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
On the other hand, there is no m in "be". :)
That's awesome. Thanks! I knew that I was going to make some mistake in there...
There ought to be some law saying that every post criticizing spelling or grammar is guaranteed to have a spelling or grammar error!
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Funny)
There is. It's called Muphry's Law :)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
No, he didn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muphry's_law [wikipedia.org]
Re:Huh? (Score:4)
Action 1: Wolffire Games Releases Lugaru HD
Action 2: Some time passes
Action 3: Wolffire Games thinks they're seeing double
Action 4: Because of the rest of the article, Action 3 may be forgiven.
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double.
Let's parse it:
"When Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games" - this gives the epoch when the rest of the sentence happened, it was all at the same time as the game was released
"'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store," - this is a more detailed explanation that tells us what game was that and where it was released
"shortly after they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double" - this is a more detailed explanation of the time, it all happened shortly after the time when they could be forgiven
" . " - oops, this sentence no verb and no subject.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no spoon.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm sure that's what they meant, but then they should have written either
"Shortly after Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store, they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double"
or
"Wolfire Games released their animal martial arts games, 'Lugaru HD', on the Mac App store. Shortly after that, they could be forgiven for thinking they were seeing double"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It means what it says.
Re: (Score:3)
Forgive him, He graduated from the University of Michigan and not a real college like Michigan State or Notre Dame.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Go fuck yourself you pedantic asshole.
Don't you mean go and fuck yourself you pedantic asshole?
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
No, no, no, he meant: "After he went and fuck in bathroom, shortly after he could be forgiven for thinking he was seeing double."
Re: (Score:3)
Thank you my good man for correcting this young fellow with such a high ID number. I'm not english at all and was very curious at your suggestion, but I knew that the internet would settle your disagreement once and for all, for it seems that "In American English go is sometimes followed directly by a bare infinitive" (source [znanje.org]).
No, I'm not drunk.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yarrr, ye'v been pushed down the page, ye scurvy dog! Yarrrr!
Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Interesting)
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
Re: (Score:2)
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically stat
Re: (Score:3)
The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically states that you certify that you have the rights to publish anything you submit
Yes, that's what I said. Thanks!
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that's what I said. Thanks!
Umm, no. you said "They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening."
The review process is not to prevent THAT soft of thing.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You're being dense, the review checks if the app is within the rules, one of the rules is "you have to have the rights to distribute this".
Dense or not, you're conflating rules on the developer with rules the app must follow. The review checks the app is within the rules for the apps (i.e. what's in the App Store Review Guidelines). The rule on "must have the rights to distribute everything submitted" is on being in the developer program (i.e. the Developer Program License Agreement).
Re: (Score:2)
I highly doubt it. What do you want to bet that the review process involves the submitter signing something stating t
Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Informative)
No, it's perfectly kosher to have GPLed source code but non-GPLed game data.
See the various Quake GPL releases - it has NEVER been legal to use that GPL code to play the original game unless you legitimately owned the data.
It took quite a while before "standalone" games were created based on the Quake1/2/3 GPL release code, in these cases ALL of the game data was replaced with new (typically Creative Commons-licensed) data.
I don't think anyone would have an issue here if the Lugaru HD engine were being used with all-new artwork. The problem here is that the Lugaru HD artwork/data is being re-released by the pirates at a much lower price, and Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Re: (Score:2)
Just charge Apple 30% on all game sales and call it even!
Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Investigating before responding != supporting. From the sound of it, only a few days have passed - and I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed off if the OTHER guy e-mail Apple first and Apple immediately pulled his app without an investigation.
Re:Unwise GPL (Score:5, Informative)
Say what? There's nothing in the GPL that prevents you from selling your software, or software written by someone else and released under the GPL (as long as you don't change the licence and make the source available).
Re:Unwise GPL (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
That even if "Lugaru" was a perfectly legal derived work - selling it would be illegal.
Selling it under a different license or without complying with the GPL (eg: no source code, misrepresentation...) that is. Selling GPL softwares is fine. It is "pirated" because the assets (eg: model, texture and sound) are not GPL and cannot be redistribued the same way, if at all. To make a legit derived work all the game contents should be redone from scratch.
There is noting foolish about releasing source code of any commercially distributed software. OP is a troll, and a idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
I think what was meant was that it is illegal because it is using characters that are under copyright outside of the GPL. I don't see any reason that one can release the source code but keep characters used in the story under a stricter copyright.
If you use essentially the same source code but change the characters and situations and story, then you would have a legal work.
The GPL does not have maps and art just game code (Score:4, Informative)
The GPL does not have maps and art just game code. You need to buy the maps and art.
Re: (Score:2)
Was ID foolish to release the Quake 3 engine under GPL too?
The money was made on the game, the engine was too old to have much value to any commercial but unscrupulous developer and if there was any copy protection to begin with i'm sure it was long cracked by the time the source was released. In other words they had basically nothing to lose by releasing the source.
You can still find Q3A being sold in many places.
I'm sure you can still find new old stock copies for sale and you can still buy it from steam (I was somewhat surprised that neither D2D or GOG had it, maybe ID is cosy with steam or something). It does
Re:GPL (Score:5, Insightful)
The real issue in this is how this will affect the public opinion on free software. It will not be good.
The public won't notice. As usual.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would it affect the public opinion? Apple would have to arrange refunds for those that bought the fraudulent app and they'd have their money back. Apple is after all somewhat responsible in this case. It's not like the android market where Google wouldn't be responsible until somebody notified them about it, Apple does screen apps before they enter the store.
Re: (Score:2)
The engine is GPL. The assets are not. You should have been able to figure this out from the summary, let alone TFA. Go troll elsewhere.
Re: (Score:2)
If the guys who released the game took effort to redraw all backgrounds, remake all the textures, remodel and retexture all the 3D models, then make maps, storyline and dialogue, then added a new soundtrack and FX on top of that, then they are perfectly in their right to bind this all using the free GPL code, and sell as their own app.
The engine is GPLd, the assets are still proprietary.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Assuming it got to court, you'd have a far easier case proving willful copyright infringement if the person had to hack your commercially packaged app, remove the content protections and repackaged it. As opposed to just checking out the source and hitting "make". Even if you could prove your case tha
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't seem to feel accountable to anyone any more. This is another great example where they don't even think they have to answer their email messages.
It's very simple, actually. Apple will not and should not react to just a claim in an e-mail. What the copyright holder has to do is to send a DMCA takedown notice in the correct form. They have to state that they are the copyright holder, that the other copy on the store is infringing on their copyright, and they have to give the correct contact information that allows them to be identified. This was published on slashdot many times when someone tried to suppress information through an overzealous DMCA takedown notice. There are rules that the copyright holder has to follow, and if they are not followed then the website need not and should not take down the allegedly infringing work.
Once a proper DMCA notice is sent, Apple will have to take down the infringing work in a reasonable amount of time (less than 24 hours) or be on the hook for copyright infringement itself (if there was copyright infringement in the first place). In addition, they have to send the contact information to the alleged infringer, who can either accept this, or demand that the software is put back on the store, which they would do if they think there is no copyright infringement and they are willing to go to court about it. If that happens, then Apple is off the hook, and we can be sure there will be a court case.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
YouTube doesn't lose their safe harbor even if they show ads along with a pirated video clip or song. "Directly attributable" in this sense means more of a profit-split, rather than the normal cost of using the company's services. If you pay for hosting and upload something illegal, the hosting company is still protected even though you paid them money. Least that's my impression of how that clause is interpreted. Your mileage in court may vary.
Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Apple has learned arrogance from MS (Score:5, Insightful)
Image requests without cookie (Score:2)
Using both *is* a bug, as the program is connecting to two different servers from HTTP perspective.
That might be exactly what is wanted, in order to avoid passing unneeded cookies around.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You're incorrect. A price is a pure scalar; any price is as much of a price as any other. $.03, $1.95, $43.00 are all equally prices, and all different. Price points are positions in the price spectrum. $0.99 is price point, and it is a price point shared with $0.95. $0.65 is less of a price point, or you could say it was a less relevant price point.
Granted, some people use the terms incorrectly, saying price point when they should be saying price. Price point is only really relevant when talking abou
Re: (Score:2)
So technically building your own game on top of the a GPLed engine, while perfectly accpetable in other contexts, can still be a problem with the app store.
Re: (Score:2)