Chinese Writers Sue Apple Over IP Violations 143
hackingbear writes "A group of 22 Chinese authors have filed a claim against Apple, alleging its App Store sells unlicensed copies of their books. The Writers Rights Alliance, founded by Han Han, a young popular Chinese author and the worlds' most popular blogger, who is known for his cynical criticism of the government, petitioned Apple last year to stop electronic distribution of the writers' books and had earlier persuaded Baidu, China's largest search engine, to stop publishing their material on its Baidu Library product."
Hard for the little guy (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
As it is, we don't know where the case is even filed, so we don't know what set of laws we are supposed to use to judge the case's merits. All we know is that they are seeking $8millionUSD.
Note that if they have a strong case, there are plenty of lawyers who would be willing to do that work for a cut of the winnings.
Re: (Score:1)
and by 'cut', they would take approximately 95-99% of the money, between expenses and the base percentage for winning
Re: (Score:2)
It's clear until Apple drops a few hints about possibly moving their manufacturing to another country. China is not the only country with a large number of worker-slaves willing to work for $1 per hour. Not to mention the Chinese have based thier entire economy and technology advancements by stealing IP from whoever they want. Why spend money on R&D when you can just steal the end result with impunity? The Chinese government makes economic policy decisions that benefit those at the top of the party hier
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the smartest policies by China's current ruling party elite is not making any big effort to spread their communist ideology to other countries like Russia attempted. Russia let their communist propaganda take center stage when they tried to influence other countries. The US used this to justify fighting them but China has basically removed that justification in their foreign affairs. They approach foreign relations amorally and basically don't give a shit about other countries ruling methods or the
Re: (Score:2)
I have been to China and it definitely does not look like a communist country, at least in the big cities. The ruling party is capitalist but they still tell their citizens they are following the communist doctrine and anyone who has a problem with it and becomes too vocal gets hauled off to the labor camps and prisons for re-education.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1, Informative)
They do get a nice 30% commision and unless there is an indemnification clause on the publisher/developer agreement, Apple did profit from the IP theft.
Re:Hard for the little guy (Score:5, Informative)
They do get a nice 30% commision and unless there is an indemnification clause on the publisher/developer agreement, Apple did profit from the IP theft.
First, it is copyright violation not "IP theft". Please don't conflate the terms as they have entirely different legal basis in most jurisdictions. Second, in the US commercial copyright infringement is punishable by the company having to pay a fine and reimburse the copyright holder unless it was knowledgeable about the copyright infringement first and refused to remove the offending content, in which case the court can award damages. So assuming this suit was filed in the US, Apple can pull the books from the store, reimburse whoever owns the copyright the profit on the 30% of each sale (which is almost nothing after operating expenses, Apple's store is about selling things cheaply in order to make money off of hardware), pay a fine, and sue whoever submitted the books to recoup the loss if they care enough. All of this, of course, presuming there is not some weird situation we don't know about or the suit was filed in China and the laws there are significantly different.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I would argue that when done on a commercial scale it is theft. Since the people who obtain the infringing copy are paying for it, often believing they are paying the legitimate rights holder, one could say these very much are literally lost sales, and the infringer actually is stealing from the rights holder.
Re:Hard for the little guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, I would argue that when done on a commercial scale it is theft. Since the people who obtain the infringing copy are paying for it, often believing they are paying the legitimate rights holder, one could say these very much are literally lost sales, and the infringer actually is stealing from the rights holder.
Apple is the one making copies in this case so they are the copyright infringer. The company that licensed the copyright to Apple could be committing fraud by licensing things they don't have legal rights to. Neither action is theft.
Theft is when you take something from someone, violating what most cultures believe to be the natural right to own goods. IP violations, on the other hand, are when you infringe upon a government granted monopoly on a particular kind of expression, expression which is itself a natural right. Confusing the two is promoting a very dangerous misunderstanding, that IP rights are somehow intrinsic and that you somehow naturally have the right to stop other people from repeating something you said or drawing a picture that looks like one you drew. This is not an unintentional problem. There has been a huge PR campaign for decades now to blur that distinction in the minds of the people to distract from the fact that in the US those IP rights are only supposed to be granted for the promotion of useful arts and sciences and that our current laws do no such thing, only funneling money into the hands of cartels that control distribution channels.
So I say again, this is about copyright violation and please, please, please stop referring to it as theft. The distinction is vital.
Re: (Score:1)
The distinction is vital.
No, it is not. Calling it one term or the other makes no difference to anybody's understanding of this story. We don't need to be perfectly accurate to any legal definition as /. is not a court of law, just a bunch of people chatting.
I believe that you only think that it is vital because you want to justify to yourself you own torrenting of movies and CDs. Why else does the word "theft" attract so many responses around here while all the other incorrect terms and misuse of the English language slip by with
Re: (Score:1)
Actually, yes it is.
Also, the slashdot that we know is formed by a punch of pedants who care about details. GTFO off my slashdot.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, yes it is.
That's a pretty poor argument. Care to back that up with an explanation?
Also, the slashdot that we know is formed by a punch of pedants who care about details.
That doesn't explain why just one particular term gets disproportionately high attention.
Re: (Score:2)
Did you actually read that part where I said that this is NOT a court of law? Even when lawyers do post here, they always make it clear that they are not giving legal advice. And really, is anyone discussing this here actually in a position to take a case of copyright infringement to court? I doubt it.
My original statement stands. We can call copyright infringement "theft", we can call cutting down the rainforests "raping the environment", we can murder a curry, and Carrie Bradshaw still assaults our eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
The more people that come to believe a lie, the more that begin repeating it and perpetuating the misunderstanding.
But why should anyone care? It does not make any real difference to anyone, and it certainly doesn't lead to any misunderstanding. Why is it so important that the word theft cannot get mentioned around here without more than one person whining about it? Why is it that hardly anybody similarly jumps in whenever the words loose or lose are used, and are invariably interchanged (eg. you will loose an argument)? If it is so important not to mix up theft and infringement, why doesn't everyone also correct the ma
Re: (Score:1)
Well no, the distinction is irrelevant. Because this is being performed on a commercial level, it actually is theft, unquestionably. A sale that the original author should have had they no longer do, while someone not the original author does. The original author is actually being deprived of something. Ergo, theft.
This is not to be confused with regular old individual copyright infringement. While technically the individual is doing the same thing, there is no guarantee they would have bought the item
Re: (Score:2)
Would a customer that bought it on iTunes have bought it if it wasn't on iTunes?
Re: (Score:2)
Besides the bloody point. It was available, for sale, legally. Someone made an unauthorised copy and sold that, without compensating the original author. If it happens that the product literally wasn't available at all except via the unauthorised copy, I personally feel it would be more ethical to pirate it than pay the infringer.
Re: (Score:2)
I am for giving the money to the original author, in this case, but realize that having commercial interest is in general irrelevant.
Example: I put up a business as a scribe. Hieroglyphs, ok? Then y'all are "stealing from me, causing lost sales" by using the roman alphabet, which anybody can decode, instead of coming to me for my services.
Does it make any sense?
Re: (Score:2)
Worst... strawman... ever. We're talking about someone's specific work being taken and sold with no compensation to the original author, not someone writing a completely different book and selling that.
Re: (Score:2)
First, it is copyright violation not "IP theft". Please don't conflate the terms as they have entirely different legal basis in most jurisdictions.
No. "IP theft" is clear in meaning. You may not like the word "theft" but the phrase is clear in meaning and unambiguous, regardless of jurisdiction.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And then afterwards people like you complain that todays youth don't know that copying is against the law.
I never made any such claim. Why must you lie to support your position? Is it that you realize you are wrong, and thus lies are required?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't imagine Apple itself just stole that IP.
Indeed, it seems to be too blatant an abuse for Apple to do. Then again, considering some of the rank amatuer moves done by big music [arstechnica.com], I can't say that I would be totally stunned if it were indeed that blatant a move on Apples part.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope this guy wins his case and shows them that individuals have the same rights as giant organizations.
I hope that they're told to fuck right off until China starts listening to our copyright complaints.
Apple doesn't sell unlicensed IP on their Store (Score:3)
Two minute justice resolution. (Score:5, Interesting)
Some third-party publisher, who have no agreement with the original author, uploaded the books to Apple for sale. Apple obliged, found the content to be reasonably tasteful, but didn't check if the third-party holds the copyright. The original author doesn't get a penny from the transaction. What makes it complicated is that Apple makes a percentage of the profit. If the original author did not agree to the profit structure, then Apple becomes an accomplice.
My two minute judgment is that (after completing a motion to discover number of copies sold and transactions made) Apple should reverse any credit deposits to the third-party, and pay for the irreversible parts out of their pocket. Apple should forfeit their share of the proceeds from selling the unlicensed books. Apple will also pay for a small percentage for statutory damage. All these should go to the original author. Then the author has a right to choose whether they want to enter an agreement with Apple to continue selling their books, even negotiate a favorable rate if they want to.
Meanwhile, Apple will be ordered to conduct a copyright check before selling. Apple might even start charging a fee to the publisher. This final point might change digital publishing landscape yet again.
Re: (Score:3)
If it doesn't then Apple deserve the resultant pain and suffering.
Re: (Score:3)
You can't indemnify an entity against lawsuits from a third party.
Re:Two minute justice resolution. (Score:4, Informative)
Basically what you are saying is, "I will pay for any costs incurred to you by lawsuits resulting from my negligence, lies, or mistakes." It's highly probably that such language is in the contract. What that means in China is somewhat more questionable.
Re: (Score:2)
No contract is set in stone, no matter what it says. You can sue anyone for anything, regardless of contracts in place.
You can also be laughed out of court, then counter-sued. Seriously, that is how the system works. Also, you seem to have failed to understand what indemnification means. Hint: it doesn't mean someone can't sue you.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not so much indemnity as liability shift. Basically, Apple would be held liable for the amount, but they have a contract permitting them to recover their liability via civil action from the party they have a contract with.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, I can let anyone upload any works to my homepage - as long as I make sure to explicitly state that I expect the uploader to indemnify me? And on top of that I can make money on it?
I can see no problem with this...
Re: (Score:1)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_analogy [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Sure you can.
And when you get sued and a court orders you to pay $10,000,000 to some party you can now ask that uploader for the $10,000,000 and take them to court for it if they don't cought up.
Of course if they don't have $10,000,000 or the court doesn't consider your statement legaly binding or they are under a jurisdiction that won't enforce it then you are still liable for that $10,000,000 (or the part they didn't pay up anyway).
Re: (Score:1)
You sure can, as long as you don't actively encourage illegal posts and agree to take them down once notified about them. Just like every site that has user generated content.
Re: (Score:1)
There will be a standard publishing contract. This isn't any different because it's Apple as publisher, or bits as ink. The publisher's contract will insist that the 'author' -- in this case the third party uploader -- holds true copyright.
They didn't; they lied. So Apple has the same protection as ink publishers.
Just like in the ink world, the original author sues the publisher. The publisher will now show in court who fed them the bogus goods, and the original author will then have to sue the bogus-er.
The
Re: (Score:2)
Just like in the ink world, the original author sues the publisher. The publisher will now show in court who fed them the bogus goods, and the original author will then have to sue the bogus-er.
I believe Apple's contracts also say that they can ask for all payments back. Actually, if you sell a book for $4.99, and Apple kept $1.50, if you stole the contents of the book Apple can ask for the whole $4.99. Whether there is anyone who can be made to pay is a different question.
I think it would be quite reasonable for the real copyright holder to ask Apple in this case for the $3.49.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you serious? Don't you see ANYTHING wrong with your reasoning?
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
And you don't see anything ironic about a Chinese person complaining about piracy? Seriously?
Re: (Score:1)
See, this is the problem with stereotypes. There is nothing ironic at all about a Chinese person complaining about piracy because we don't know if the people complaining about piracy are the same people who are pirating. It might be true and you may think it is true but until you establish that, a Chinese person complaining about piracy shouldn't be ironic in itself. We all like to be treated as individuals when negative presumptions are concerned. It's like saying that it is ironic that an American is
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Nope. Not when it comes to ripping off the Chinese who happily rip everyone else off.
Sorry, it won't matter what your reply is I have zero sympathy for these people.
Re: (Score:2)
Why stop on just chinese?
'Cause the article was about Chinese writers. It wasn't about a problem in Harlem or a corrupt US regime.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently people and groups in China suing Apple for cash (which has close to $100B on hand [nytimes.com]) is now a thing — witness the lawsuit filed by flat-ass broke Proview [huffingtonpost.com] over the iPad name it gave up the rights to years ago (via a Taiwan subsidiary so it could try to hide the money Apple paid it from its creditors).
This sounds like a nuisance lawsuit filed against a big company specifically to try to extort a cash settlement out of convenience, rather than suing the actual copyright infringer (which is proba
wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I thought Intellectual Property laws protected creators from other creators, not from retailers... Apple's terms and conditions clearly state that anything submitted to their store must be legal to sell in the first place. This is a grab for attention, nothing else, and the accusers are only wasting their time.
So it's perfectly legal to sell counterfeit goods so long as you didn't actually create said goods and your 'terms and conditions' state that you have been told by the supplier that the goods are legal to sell in the first place? Sounds like a nice way to absolve yourself of responsibility.
Re: (Score:3)
I thought Intellectual Property laws protected creators from other creators, not from retailers... Apple's terms and conditions clearly state that anything submitted to their store must be legal to sell in the first place. This is a grab for attention, nothing else, and the accusers are only wasting their time.
So it's perfectly legal to sell counterfeit goods so long as you didn't actually create said goods and your 'terms and conditions' state that you have been told by the supplier that the goods are legal to sell in the first place? Sounds like a nice way to absolve yourself of responsibility.
It's not "perfectly legal". It is, however, only slightly illegal and puts the majority of the financial burden on the company that has claimed the goods they are selling (or license they are granting) is legitimate.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A couple thoughts your post inspired:
1) Most copyright laws are outdated and ill suited to account for digital content
2) The international nature of digital distribution makes dealing with varying copyright laws a huge pain in the ass
3) 1984 should be public domain (everywhere); it makes me wonder if it might be in Apple, Amazon, and B&N's best interests to lobby to have the Mickey Mouse Protection Act repealed or rewritten. Although this sounds promising, the thought makes me sad because I have no hope
Re: (Score:2)
As Apple isn't mailing out physical books, but instead is creating a copy on every sale, they are a content "creator" (as in distributor/copier), and thus are exactly who the copyright laws were written to cover.
Apple is serving as a retailer here, not a publisher like Random House or Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Apple is not the content creator nor is it the publisher of said content. In this instance, it's a retail outlet only.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A publisher holds some form of copyright on the work. That's not true in this case, despite what the troll plaintiffs claim.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I thought Intellectual Property laws protected creators from other creators
Funny, I thought they were To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts. [usconstitution.net]
Re: (Score:2)
try buying pirate apple products and then selling them in san fransisco and see if it's you who gets sued or that some factory in some eastern country which produced the products and sold them to you to retail.
jurisdiction? (Score:1)
I don't mean to sound too cynical, but what laws are being applied? Chinese laws? US laws? Some laws invented by the "disinterested" UN? IANAL, but I think there needs to be clear indication that China had laws on the books to uphold intellectual property rights of citizens, and the suit needs to happen in Chinese courts. Alternatively, these authors could file suit using US laws, but then they would have to do it in US courts.
Waiting to see what comes (Score:2)
Re:hahahaah irony (Score:5, Insightful)
How do you say moron in English?
Do you think any of these authors were doing any infringing themselves, or were you just so desperate to make that predictable joke that you couldn't bother to take your brain out of idiot mode long enough to think about it?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It's only ironic if you think that every one of the 1.3 billion people living China is the same, and each is in perfect agreement with their government. I.e., if you are stupid. I should probably also add racist because the former might interfere with some people's ability to figure it out.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The same way that not every single American wants to bomb every other country, not every single Chinese makes millions by selling counterfeit products. Writers, in particular, tend to care about intellectual property, so it is not ironic that a writer has an issue with someone making money off his work without his permission. You see, people tend to have different opinions - even if they're Chinese - and what you're doing is stereotyping, putting a billion and a half persons on the same bag (while thinking
Re: (Score:1)
True, but it's still ironic when an American complains about a country invading another country pro-actively yet claiming it's in defense. The common actions of a group that a person belongs to sets the expectations one has about the individual members of that group. Admittedly, that doesn't mean that all members of that group act that way, or that you should treat members of that group as if they WILL behave that way.
That being sa
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That being said, the Chinese government really needs to follow the rules of IP that other countries generally do if they want to be able to expect those other countries to treat the IP of their citizens with any respect.
That's not likely to happen.
U.S. courts are notorious for ignoring foreign countries IP. You don't hear much about it because smaller nations can't really throw any weight to protect their "rights". The Chinese have that weight and a willingness to copy, not only the products, but also the behaviour of the U.S.
Unless there is a large policy-change in the courts of the U.S. then I wouldn't expect the Chinese to do anything but symbolic attempts to uphold the IP of other nations.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the definition of irony. That's the idiot's definition of irony. http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&safe=off&site=&source=hp&q=irony&oq=irony&aq=f&aqi=g10&aql=&gs_sm=3&gs_upl=592l1387l0l1647l5l5l0l0l0l0l72l350l5l5l0&gs_l=hp.3..0l10.592l1387l0l1648l5l5l0l0l0l0l72l350l5l5l0.frgbld [google.ca].
education it's free.
Re: (Score:2)
It's also well known that big companies in the "west" rip off citizens, domestic and abroad, by squeezing their workforce and swindle them out of their resources, and the government helps and/or participates in it. So I guess it should be OK if I went and swindled the average mom'n'pop shop out of their life savings?
Re: (Score:1)
Trolls everywhere. How about you dive down my septic tank, and rescue your fucking "politically correct" shit?
This is supposedly a site where people actually think, and discuss ideas. Political correctness has no place on such a site. Political correctness is a tool with which to keep the masses of sheep in line. It is worth less than shit to a thinking person.
Re:hahahaah irony (Score:4, Insightful)
After all, there is only one Chinese person, with only one opinion, isn't there? Just as everybody on /. agrees about everything.
ji1feng3, since you asked. Sorry, /. doesn't seem to let the Chinese script through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Why you posted that? don't you know the predictable joke is modded down on /. ?
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure, but with a Chinese accent, it's ILONY
Well, well ...
Predictable as always
Re:hahahaah irony (Score:4, Informative)
how you say irony in chinese?
Not sure, but with a Chinese accent, it's ILONY
Ironically, "IRONY" is one of the few English words which most Chinese speakers will be abe to pronounce nearly perfectly, as it lacks consonant clusters, and ends on a vowel.
Re: (Score:2)
Chinese never end syllables with a consonant (except "n" or "ng"). So if you have a consonant cluster, it will sound totally alien to a Chinese speaker. They aren't used to pronouncing things that way. It's like trying to say a German word (like "AngstschweiB") you are English.
So they tend to insert vowels, to break up the clusters. "He-lo, my name-a is Li, and-a my En-ga-lish-a isa not-a so good-a."
On the other hand, the word "Irony" will sound like three Chinese words stitched together (maybe "ai re ni" -
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you cycle it through google translator english=> chinese (traditional or simplified) => english: you get "Satire".
Ironically, Irony doesn't translate.
Re: (Score:2)
Ironically, they all do.
http://theoatmeal.com/comics/irony [theoatmeal.com]
High five?
Re: (Score:2)
how you say irony in chinese?
I'd tell you, but slashdot still doesn't support unicode. It's pronounced "fanfeng" or there abouts.
Re: (Score:1)
Ironry ;-)
Re: (Score:2)