TV Time Attacks Apple's 'Significant Power' After App Store Removal

TV Time's parent company criticized Apple's App Store control after the tech giant removed its streaming app over an intellectual property dispute. "Apple holds significant power over app developers by controlling access to a massive market and, in this case, seems to have acted on a complaint without requiring robust evidence from the complainant," Jerry Inman, CMO of Whip Media, which operates the app, told TechCrunch.

The app was pulled from the store by Apple after the developer refused to pay a settlement fee related to user-uploaded cover art. The app has since been reinstated.

"The app has since been reinstated. "

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

So, the review process worked in the developer's favor.

Re:"The app has since been reinstated. "

[Sebby]

So, the review process worked in the developer's favor.

Well, not really:

According to Whip Media Chief Marketing Officer Jerry Inman, the dispute with Apple had to do with the mishandling of a routine intellectual property (IP) complaint. TV Time users had uploaded some TV and film cover art to the app, leading a company to claim copyrights over the app and issue a takedown notice via the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). While TV Time complies with the DMCA, it asked the complainant to provide proof of ownership — like a copyright registration — which it was unable to do. Despite the lack of evidence, TV Time says it still removed the images from both the TV Time platform and its metadata platform, TheTVDB.

However, the complainant also demanded a financial settlement not consistent with the DMCA so Whip Media did not agree to pay, Inman claims.

The DMCA complaint was actually bogus, but Apple still removed the app because it believe the complainant over facts. On top of that the complainant tried extortion (claimed to Apple the issue was still 'unresolved', presumably because they didn't get their payout). The article doesn't detail how Apple was convinced to reinstate the app.

Re:"The app has since been reinstated. "

[Xenx]

The reality here, however, is that if Apple wants to protect themselves from liability they have to follow the rules in the DMCA. That means they have to take down reported infringing content. It can be put back up, if they receive a counter claim. However, there is a minimum period that it has to stay down. I don't have in front of me, but it's a few days.

Re:

[Sebby]

The reality here, however, is that if Apple wants to protect themselves from liability they have to follow the rules in the DMCA. That means they have to take down reported infringing content. It can be put back up, if they receive a counter claim. However, there is a minimum period that it has to stay down. I don't have in front of me, but it's a few days.

True - which is why this whole DMCA thing is a scam; it forces some third party into action, to the detriment of the true victim by someone claiming to be a victim (the complainant) which only has to claim (not prove) their IP is being infringed, leaving it up to the true victim to clean up the whole mess, or wait it out until it's proven the claim was bogus.

This scam has been used far too often to suppress or otherwise kneecap (even if temporarily) the victim's business by competitors abusing the "process"

Re:

[Valgrus Thunderaxe]

Does Apple or any other similar entity (YouTube, etc.) have the expertise to prove whether any of these claims are factual or not? That what a court is for. There was nothing stopping TV Time from refuting the claim (which they did, BTW - that's what the article is about. After they did so, their app was restored).

If you this this process is too onerous, I can't imagine what would happen if these companies had to get into the "truth business" for every claim made.

Re:

[Sebby]

Hence DMCA being a scam.

Re:

[SvnLyrBrto]

Well, Apple does have much deeper pockets than a lot of the smaller app developers. They *could* start suing the sweet holy hell out of anyone who dishes out a DMCA claim that turns out, in any way, to be non-infringing. For my part, I'd rather see the "under penalty of perjury" bit of the DMCA given sone teeth such that the bogus claimants get to cool their heels in federal prison for a while. But a massive lawsuit from a company that can basically darken your sky with lawyers as if they were a plague o

Re:

[jonwil]

The DMCA takedown process is important, what is needed is reform to create strong penalties for people who file a takedown notice on content when the takedown notice isn't legitimate (e.g. when someone files a DMCA takedown notice for content where they aren't the copyright holder and aren't authorized by the copyright holder to enforce copyright)

Re:

[Sebby]

The problems have been there since its inception back in the late 90s - plenty of time for these to have gotten remedies/fixes in. The fact nothing's been done proves it's all a scam.

Re:

[Xenx]

The challenge is that DMCA takedowns are support to be accessible to individual copyright holders. There is a level of goodwill baked into the process, so that they can file claims without taking on the cost of a lawyer or the risk of making an honest mistake. The intentions there are good. The problem is that it allows people to make intentionally false claims with plausible mistakes, and then proving intent in court is difficult. It does happen, but there are also cases where you think it would be easy to

Re:

[sid crimson]

So, the review process worked in the developer's favor.

Seems as though the review process should have considered the facts before pulling the app. The article doesn't make clear whether Apple was knee-jerking or (giving the benefit of the doubt) protecting Apple and/or the Developer.

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

So, the review process worked in the developer's favor.

Not really.. They can't recover the stolen time they lost to resolve the matter

Re:

[Calydor]

Hey dickwad, I have the copyright on that line. You owe me 500 dollars. No, don't check if I actually have that copyright and don't demand proof, just pay me.

The app has since been reinstated.

[TigerPlish]

From TFS:

The app has since been reinstated.

Then why'd you post this, msmash? To stir shit up?

Of course you did. That's all you do.

Re:

[bill_mcgonigle]

Your comment and mine sold some ads.

Re:

[PsychoSlashDot]

Then why'd you post this, msmash? To stir shit up?

To point out yet another story where DMCA is weaponized?

To provide a kernel for discussion of how much leverage app stores have over developers?

To give folks a heads-up that things like TV Time and TheTVDB even exist?

To link to an article you didn't read.

The real problem

[NotEmmanuelGoldstein]

... without requiring robust evidence ...

The law doesn't require evidence, it requires the third party (Apple) do something. This is Tv Time complaining that applying the law to them, was wrong because Apple didn't have a process that Tv Time likes.

TV Time was removed from Nintendo as well.

[Narcocide]

Many years ago now, TV Time was a home screen app stock with the Nintendo Wii-U operating system. After a few years it was removed there too, though I don't recall any DMCA violations being cited in the incident. What I recall was that they had persistently unsatisfactory service reliability and data accuracy, and there were some vague allusions to potential user privacy issues. I actually really liked the promise of the type of features they tried to showcase, but unfortunately the whole product was never

Put liability on the claimant

[sixsixtysix]

The claimant should have to pay, if their claims are found to be false. It should be the exact penalty that an infringer would have to pay, per missed stream.