Clearly, Apple approved those apsp because (though useless) nothing was outwardly wrong with them.
And clearly they revoked because of a pattern of brazen violation of the IP rules of the app store agreement.
Saying Apple was wrong in this is to suggest they must personally validate the ownership of all intellectual property of every app before approval.
Maybe Apple shouldn't revoke apps for copyright infringement, nor should they personally validate the copyright status of all apps they post. After all, we already have a legal system to use for enforcing copyright, and in the US, it currently includes a well-defined process for handling accusations of copyright infringement (even though it is badly biased against the accused infringer), with infringement takedown notice and counternotice provisions. Apple could just use the DMCA safe harbor and remove apps when it receives accusations of infringement.
Exactly. This is why it is a bad idea to become gatekeeper to a platform, you end up being judge, jury and executioner.
It also raises the expectations of what you are liable for, after all if you've approved something you associate yourself with it. An open platform would never have those issues.
That's the problem! With an open platform, the copyright holder could only come after the developer. All of a sudden, Apple is liable for 100% of the content!
I would never want to be the gatekeeper to anything.
I would say that the Android Market is a much more open distribution channel than the App Store but still there are mechanisms built into the Android Market to counter illegal or harmful apps such as users being able to flag an application they consider to be one
The difference is that in a more open scenario it's the community that does the majority of filtering and not a corporation or a group of corporations. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not but still an interesting contrast.
Sure, but if they do that, who are they doing a favor? It's certainly not their customers.
I'm kind of surprised that they let the "App Store spammer" get away with it for so long. I mean, they could have righteously stopped him at 100 if you ask me.
I don't think they should be deciding what does and doesn't get installed on iPhones at all, but in any case I don't think they should be doing it on the basis of third parties' rights that may or may not have been infringed and who may or may not be unhappy about it.
Here are the parties they would be doing a favor:
* Themselves: they gain no benefit from putting effort into enforcing copyright law beyond what the law demands, and when they make a mistake, they may be setting themselves up for liability from whichever side loses out from their mistake.
* iPhone users, who would benefit from access to a wider variety of apps.
* Non-infringing app authors, who would face a smaller chance of erroneous rejection because Apple wasn't sufficiently convinced of the validity of their copyright licensing arrangements.
* Infringing app authors, obviously, who would have a much easier time publishing their apps.
What makes this so much more complicated is the fact that the App Store is the only (legit) way to get apps on your device.
If there had been other ways to promote and sell apps besides the App Store, then it would have been wrong of Apple to cancel their developer license.
Then they could just have banned them from the App Store — for spamming it. Clearly, they are just spamming the App Store with 900+ apps that does basically nothing in the hopes of tricking a few people to buy it (there's no money back guarantee).
That's a model I'd love to see: the App Store reduced to a store with "safeware" apps approved by Apple.
But the way it is now, that joker certainly is spamming the App Store, his entire business is based on fooling people — he and his company should be banned from it. It is, however, too bad he can't continue to sell his spam apps on the web and promote them on his own.
In India, VSNL is the only legitimate way to get internet connectivity from overseas. Does that mean that VSNL has an obligation to filter your internet access to prevent copyright infringement?
I could see Apple doing the Wrong Thing with this very easily, but in this case, I have to agree with him.
This developer was violating copyright for the purpose of selling useless junk to users. Unlike some high-profile rejections, it's very clear in the written agreement that violating copyright is not allowed. It also doesn't appear that there was anything accidental about these violations; the developer understood exactly what we was doing, and no reasonable person would have thought it to be legitimate.
Comments
Clearly, Apple approved those apsp because (though useless) nothing was outwardly wrong with them. And clearly they revoked because of a pattern of brazen violation of the IP rules of the app store agreement.
Saying Apple was wrong in this is to suggest they must personally validate the ownership of all intellectual property of every app before approval.
And that's just absurd.
Maybe Apple shouldn't revoke apps for copyright infringement, nor should they personally validate the copyright status of all apps they post. After all, we already have a legal system to use for enforcing copyright, and in the US, it currently includes a well-defined process for handling accusations of copyright infringement (even though it is badly biased against the accused infringer), with infringement takedown notice and counternotice provisions. Apple could just use the DMCA safe harbor and remove apps when it receives accusations of infringement.
Exactly. This is why it is a bad idea to become gatekeeper to a platform, you end up being judge, jury and executioner.
It also raises the expectations of what you are liable for, after all if you've approved something you associate yourself with it. An open platform would never have those issues.
That's the problem! With an open platform, the copyright holder could only come after the developer. All of a sudden, Apple is liable for 100% of the content!
I would never want to be the gatekeeper to anything.
I would say that the Android Market is a much more open distribution channel than the App Store but still there are mechanisms built into the Android Market to counter illegal or harmful apps such as users being able to flag an application they consider to be one
The difference is that in a more open scenario it's the community that does the majority of filtering and not a corporation or a group of corporations. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not but still an interesting contrast.
Sure, but if they do that, who are they doing a favor? It's certainly not their customers.
I'm kind of surprised that they let the "App Store spammer" get away with it for so long. I mean, they could have righteously stopped him at 100 if you ask me.
I don't think they should be deciding what does and doesn't get installed on iPhones at all, but in any case I don't think they should be doing it on the basis of third parties' rights that may or may not have been infringed and who may or may not be unhappy about it.
Here are the parties they would be doing a favor:
* Themselves: they gain no benefit from putting effort into enforcing copyright law beyond what the law demands, and when they make a mistake, they may be setting themselves up for liability from whichever side loses out from their mistake.
* iPhone users, who would benefit from access to a wider variety of apps.
* Non-infringing app authors, who would face a smaller chance of erroneous rejection because Apple wasn't sufficiently convinced of the validity of their copyright licensing arrangements.
* Infringing app authors, obviously, who would have a much easier time publishing their apps.
What makes this so much more complicated is the fact that the App Store is the only (legit) way to get apps on your device.
If there had been other ways to promote and sell apps besides the App Store, then it would have been wrong of Apple to cancel their developer license.
Then they could just have banned them from the App Store — for spamming it. Clearly, they are just spamming the App Store with 900+ apps that does basically nothing in the hopes of tricking a few people to buy it (there's no money back guarantee).
That's a model I'd love to see: the App Store reduced to a store with "safeware" apps approved by Apple.
But the way it is now, that joker certainly is spamming the App Store, his entire business is based on fooling people — he and his company should be banned from it. It is, however, too bad he can't continue to sell his spam apps on the web and promote them on his own.
In India, VSNL is the only legitimate way to get internet connectivity from overseas. Does that mean that VSNL has an obligation to filter your internet access to prevent copyright infringement?
Well, with a contrived example, you can prove anything. I wouldn't say Apple's App Store interferes with your right to free speech.
I could see Apple doing the Wrong Thing with this very easily, but in this case, I have to agree with him.
This developer was violating copyright for the purpose of selling useless junk to users. Unlike some high-profile rejections, it's very clear in the written agreement that violating copyright is not allowed. It also doesn't appear that there was anything accidental about these violations; the developer understood exactly what we was doing, and no reasonable person would have thought it to be legitimate.