Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Chinese Writers Sue Apple Over IP Violations

Posted by samzenpus on from the gentlemen-start-your-litigation dept.

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."

18 of 143 comments (clear)

  1. Hard for the little guy by wrathpwn · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If it had been Apple or any other giant corporation who had been wronged, the victor of the case would be clear. I hope this guy wins his case and shows them that individuals have the same rights as giant organizations.

    1. Re:Hard for the little guy by wrathpwn · · Score: 2

      Does Apple sell these books on their own behalf on the App Store? I think it's possible that someone else put this up as their own work, and Apple just trusted them or accidentally let it slip through the review process.

    2. Re:Hard for the little guy by ninetyninebottles · · 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.

    3. Re:Hard for the little guy by ninetyninebottles · · 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.

  2. Re:hahahaah irony by crossmr · · 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?

  3. Apple doesn't sell unlicensed IP on their Store by tyrione · · Score: 2

    Perhaps a third party publisher who believes they own the rights to publish the writings does, but it sure as hell won't be Apple.

  4. Re:hahahaah irony by digitig · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
  5. Two minute justice resolution. by pikine · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    I once had a signature.
    1. Re:Two minute justice resolution. by Crypto+Gnome · · Score: 2

      Sure this is just me making assumptions and I have never published a book via Apple but one would expect that the standard form legalese involved in the transaction would clearly state "I the undersigned claim copyright over the published work and indemnify Apple against any lawsuits" (or words to that effect).

      If it doesn't then Apple deserve the resultant pain and suffering.

      --
      Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
    2. Re:Two minute justice resolution. by broken_chaos · · Score: 2

      You can't indemnify an entity against lawsuits from a third party.

    3. Re:Two minute justice resolution. by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes you can, it would be weird to indemnify someone for a lawsuit filed by yourself.

      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.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. wait a minute... by alienzed · · Score: 4, 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.

    --
    Never say never. Ah!! I did it again!
    1. Re:wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    2. Re:wait a minute... by ninetyninebottles · · Score: 2

      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.

  7. Re:hahahaah irony by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  8. Re:hahahaah irony by Anonymous Coward · · 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 you and possibly also the people you know are unique snowflakes).

    It would be ironic if the guy wrote a book preaching against intellectual property and then sued when someone infringed on his intellectual property.

  9. Re:hahahaah irony by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  10. Re:hahahaah irony by wisty · · Score: 3, 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.