Beta

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Chinese Writers Sue Apple Over IP Violations

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the gentlemen-start-your-litigation dept.

Books 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."

cancel ×

143 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chinese Writers... (-1, Troll)

smileygladhands (1909508) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398581)

They sues. Engrish title ftw.

Re:Chinese Writers... (-1, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398707)

They sues. Engrish title ftw.

Oh yeah, laugh at the Chinese, laugh at their "flied lice" Engrish

Congratulation Sir !

You are an exemplary role model of the West !!!

Re:Chinese Writers... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398767)

Oh yeah, laugh at the Chinese, laugh at their "flied lice" Engrish

Congratulation Sir !

You are an exemplary role model of the West !!!

Obvious typo is obvious. Even in slashdot headings. Duh.
So, what makes you think that the GP's comment had anything to do with laughing at the Chinese?

Re:Chinese Writers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398769)

The original title is "Chinese writers' group sues Apple: state media", so it's a mistake of the submitter to leave out "group" and not adjusting the verb.

Re:Chinese Writers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399109)

Muphry's law's effect is to point out a grammar mistake and switching the tense midsentence.

Re:Chinese Writers... (-1, Redundant)

meerling (1487879) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398955)

I'd bet that Engrish article title was written by a native English speaker.
Maybe not, but still...

Re:Chinese Writers... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400389)

If I had points, I'd mod you down.

Freedom (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398607)

But information wants to be free! It's ok for someone else to sell that information and not pay you for it because that's what information wants!

hahahaah irony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398611)

the chinese suing over IP infringement. thats fucking rich.

how you say irony in chinese?

Re:hahahaah irony (5, Insightful)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398665)

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:hahahaah irony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398725)

it will be noted, crossmr, that when faced with uncomfortable reality, you choose to turn and goosestep in sync with political correctness.

Re:hahahaah irony (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398913)

So you believe that's politically correct to say that there are individual chinese people who have integrity and who oppose their oppressive government? Really?

YOU ARE A FUCKING PIECE OF SHIT MORON WHO DREAMS OF SHEEP RAPE! Hope that was suitably un-PC for you, you worthless piece of shit.

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400839)

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 (0, Troll)

Berfert (831562) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399173)

Given how the Chinees government and people as a whole have next to no respect for the IP of other nations, it is funny that a citizen of China is suing to protect their IP. The companies in China are well known for stealing the IP of companies from other countries and, on top of that, the government helps and/or participates in it.

Re:hahahaah irony (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399217)

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:hahahaah irony (-1, Troll)

Berfert (831562) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399651)

irony: an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected.

The Chinese government and people are known for ignoring the IP rights of folks from other countries. A member of the Chinese people complained about an individual/company from a foreign government not respecting his IP.

You're more than welcome to label that as "not irony", but that doesn't mean you're right and everyone else is wrong.

Re:hahahaah irony (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399975)

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.

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

Berfert (831562) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400247)

The same way that not every single American wants to bomb every other country

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 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.

Re:hahahaah irony (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400827)

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:hahahaah irony (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400871)

Re:hahahaah irony (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399617)

You mean exactly like the US after independence ?

Re:hahahaah irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400427)

What's wrong with not respecting IP laws? I think Chinese are smart to do this. Why not take piece of that pie if you can. The more rediculous shit going there, the better it is for everyone.

Re:hahahaah irony (3, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398679)

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:hahahaah irony (1)

ozmanjusri (601766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398681)

fengci

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398727)

Why you posted that? don't you know the predictable joke is modded down on /. ?

Re:hahahaah irony (-1)

517714 (762276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398755)

how you say irony in chinese?

Not sure, but with a Chinese accent, it's ILONY

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39401099)

Not sure, but with a Chinese accent, it's ILONY

Well, well ...

Predictable as always

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399041)

Well, if you cycle it through google translator english=> chinese (traditional or simplified) => english: you get "Satire".

Ironically, Irony doesn't translate.

Re:hahahaah irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399127)

Ironically, noone uses "ironically" right. Literally noone.

Re:hahahaah irony (1)

donscarletti (569232) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400353)

how you say irony in chinese?

I'd tell you, but slashdot still doesn't support unicode. It's pronounced "fanfeng" or there abouts.

Hard for the little guy (5, Interesting)

wrathpwn (1995376) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398613)

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.

Re:Hard for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398627)

It' a clear-cut case of commercial copyright violation.

300,000 USD per copy.

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398709)

It might be, if it were in the US (let me point out that it's hard to say it's a 'clear-cut' case of anything when we don't even know where the case is filed).

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:Hard for the little guy (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399091)

and by 'cut', they would take approximately 95-99% of the money, between expenses and the base percentage for winning

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

cavreader (1903280) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398959)

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 hierarchy. Any benefits to the average citizen is just a bonus. I am still trying figure out how there can be billionaires in China when the government is supposedly communist in nature At least the US comes right out and clearly states upfront that everything is geared toward generating wealth.

Re:Hard for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399989)

China has not been communist for a long time now. It is basically now a capitalistic state without all the regulations that the USA teaparty/libertarian/etc people complain about. In other words, want to know what life with a "free market" would be like? Go visit China*.

* Granted, it is not quite a free market in China with the crony-ism happening, vestiges of the party days.

Re:Hard for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400455)

more, some of those people will download and make it available for free ont eh internetz(torrents and such), so Apple must pay more!

Re:Hard for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398655)

I can't imagine Apple itself just stole that IP.

Re:Hard for the little guy (2)

wrathpwn (1995376) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398677)

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.

Re:Hard for the little guy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398695)

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 (5, Informative)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398869)

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:Hard for the little guy (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399103)

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 (5, Insightful)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399325)

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:Hard for the little guy (0)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399787)

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 nary a word?

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400191)

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:Hard for the little guy (1)

Gadget_Guy (627405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400431)

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:Hard for the little guy (0)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400113)

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 anyway (though there's also no guarantee they wouldn't - suck it piracy advocates), hence there's no absolutely certain way to tell if the author actually is being deprived of something. Then again, they may still be. It's an interesting debate but not one I'm willing to pursue. Too damn philosophical.

Then again, most people found guilty of copyright infringement (i.e. Jammie Thomas) probably would prefer they just outright called it theft. 300 hours community service is a hell of a lot less life-destroying than 7.5 million dollars.

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400623)

Would a customer that bought it on iTunes have bought it if it wasn't on iTunes?

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39401083)

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:Hard for the little guy (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399437)

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:Hard for the little guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399763)

IP theft is when you illegally take away someone's patents, trademarks or copyrights.

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399829)

And how would that be done? Copyright fraud (falsifying documents to appear to have done something they did not do)? Or breaking into the patent office and altering pages? Either one could be considered IP fraud, thus leaving "IP theft" as an unambiguous descriptor of copyright...

Re:Hard for the little guy (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398689)

You must be new here. Apple is always wrong, and they are a big evil corporation..

Re:Hard for the little guy (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398735)

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.

Apple doesn't sell unlicensed IP on their Store (2)

tyrione (134248) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398675)

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.

Re:Apple doesn't sell unlicensed IP on their Store (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398853)

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.

Who's store is selling this again? I'm sure store owners that sell counterfeit products are never prosecuted because it's the counterfeit product manufacturers selling their products through the store, nothing to do with the store owner, they can just dictate the terms, absolve themselves of responsibility and still a cut of the sale...oh wait, no they can't!

known for his cynical criticism of the government (0)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398691)

Whoever wrote that doesn't understand ``cynical'' or ``criticism''.

Two minute justice resolution. (4, Interesting)

pikine (771084) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398699)

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:Two minute justice resolution. (2)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398745)

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.

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (2)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398889)

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

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (3, Informative)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399223)

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.

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399561)

No contract is set in stone, no matter what it says. You can sue anyone for anything, regardless of contracts in place.

Seriously. This is how the system works.

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399747)

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:Two minute justice resolution. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400089)

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:Two minute justice resolution. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399581)

This just means that Apple can go after the entity it had the indemnify agreement with. It doesn't mean that Apple is off the hook--just that they may be able to recover more from their former partner.

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (1)

Splab (574204) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400935)

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:Two minute justice resolution. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39401003)

Re:Two minute justice resolution. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399365)

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.

There is no legislation requiring Apple or ink publishers to do more to ascertain a submitting author is the true author. The true author will /only/ have further suit against Apple if it can be proven that Apple actually knew the work broke copyright before being notified.

Haha! That's hilarious (0, Troll)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398805)

Chinese complaining about someone pirating their stuff.

Here's a tip to Mr. Han. "You live in a country where stealing is endemic. I suggest you move to a country where the law and the government actually care."

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398845)

Chinese complaining about someone pirating their stuff.

Here's a tip to Mr. Han. "You live in a country where stealing is endemic. I suggest you move to a country where the law and the government actually care."

Do you know who Han Han is?

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400155)

>Do you know who Han Han is?

Of course we do. He's Han Solo's long lost asian brother.

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398927)

Quit putting race in a place where it doesn't belong. Even if he could move, his parents would never be allowed to leave the country.

In the case of Han Han, his parents have been threatened professionally because of his writings. Han decided that he would make enough money to convince his parents to quit their day jobs.

Don't hate on people because of what some of their country persons do. Americans have earned the enimity of many overseas because of foreign policies only a few hundred people have any hand in controlling. It's a stupid game people play and I wish they would not.

Han Han deserves to get paid too. He's got this magnificent balance of writing things just acerbic enough to be considered edgy, but not to the point where the authorities want to drag him out into a car and perform a permanent disappearing act. Apple is on a pretty bad losing streak in China as it is, so the vultures are circling.

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399129)

to many Americans the only good CHICOM is a dead CHICOM

the CHICOMs are responsible for the misery of millions of people and have killed untold millions of their own people within the last 60 years

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (1)

Isaac Remuant (1891806) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399149)

Are you serious? Don't you see ANYTHING wrong with your reasoning?

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0, Flamebait)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399417)

And you don't see anything ironic about a Chinese person complaining about piracy? Seriously?

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399857)

And you don't see anything hypocritical about an American company pirating someone's IP?

Re:Haha! That's hilarious (0, Flamebait)

SilverJets (131916) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399985)

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:Haha! That's hilarious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400141)

Nope. Not when it comes to $activity towards $group, who $stereotype_involving_said_activity.

Why stop on just chinese? Would you also condone going for fun looting'n'shooting rides in Harlem? Or, say, military invasion into US to overthrow corrupt regime?

wait a minute... (4, Insightful)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39398859)

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.

Re:wait a minute... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399257)

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:wait a minute... (2)

ninetyninebottles (2174630) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399339)

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:wait a minute... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399691)

Factor out the hyperbole and it becomes this:

1. Apple goes, "So, this guy Y over here made false representation that it was his work. You'll want to sue them."
2. Apple takes the infringing work down.
3. Apple sues Y for fraud and damages.
4. And Apple goes, "Hey, here's all of your evidence against Y in case you want to sue them, too."

That's what Apple's contracts are for, to make Apple come out okay in the end.

Re:wait a minute... (1)

zullnero (833754) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399831)

I wouldn't normally be one to stick up for Apple, but yes. If the company actively scans and rejects illegal material (and we know Apple does, because if you haven't gotten a rejection notice at least once, you don't have a lot of experience dealing with Apple...), and illegal material gets submitted and is accidentally approved regardless of the state of its legality, the only thing that Han Han can get out of a lawsuit is a takedown of the illegal works, as far as I know. IANAL, of course, but logically speaking that's the best he could expect out of a lawsuit. If it weren't Apple, and they were suing to get a link removed from your website, the best you'd expect them to do to you would be to make you delete the link.

Re:wait a minute... (1)

AK Marc (707885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39399543)

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's terms require that it be legal to sell. But that doesn't mean they are legally in the right once somone else disagrees with the rights as asserted by someone else, otherwise, 1984 would still be on Amazon Kindle. It was legally loaded up by someone with rights to do so, then sold elsewhere where the person who uploaded it did not have rights to sell it.

Re:wait a minute... (1)

RazorSharp (1418697) | more than 2 years ago | (#39401063)

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 of the government passing laws because that's what the citizens want, the only hope for positive legislative change is that it benefits a large corporation somehow (e.g. the fight against SOPA).

Re:wait a minute... (1)

2muchcoffeeman (573484) | more than 2 years ago | (#39401093)

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:wait a minute... (0)

hateu (2598389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400843)

Where are the "copying is not theft" people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398947)

We need you guys in here to give Han Han and associates a good telling-off on their trampling of personal freedom and attempt at censorship. And also lecture us on how the person/company selling Han Han's works is just as innocent/heroic as Kim Dotcom. Let's go guys!

Re:Where are the "copying is not theft" people (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400493)

obvious, cowardly anonymous troll is obviously a coward. Copying is not theft, making profit from the copies is.

Grammar-o in summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39398961)

and the worlds' most popular blogger

Oh? Which worlds are included in the statistic? Earth and Mars? First, Second, and Third? All the worlds?

Most popular blogger....???? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399667)

" and the worlds' most popular blogger"

That's like being the world's most formidable Dungeons & Dragon player.

Its the sound of one hand clapping.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399769)

Someone ripping off Chinese work?

Oh, the irony.

who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399845)

> world's most popular author

who?
First I've heard of him. I know every blogger in the world.

People's Republic China, the real land of the free (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39399897)

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

Criticism of the government makes you a star in China.
Criticism of American policies lands you on the DHS no-fly list.

Yo0 FAIL it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39400277)

Th4-t has grown up

Role Reversal (-1, Redundant)

MacGyver2210 (1053110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400293)

I can't help but laugh a little that someone in China, one of the world's leading copyright infringers and notorious ignorers of IP laws, is suing Apple over IP.

That's like the pot calling the kettle a pot.

jurisdiction? (0)

CaptainNerdCave (982411) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400527)

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.

PVC Crust Foam Board (-1, Offtopic)

hateu (2598389) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400825)

Waiting to see what comes (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 2 years ago | (#39400857)

The problem is that with this being China, it's not clear to me that Apple has actually violated any copyright law. For example, the business that was selling these works on Apple's App Store may have had copyright at the time, but had it taken away from them and transferred to this "Writers Rights Alliance" without their knowledge. Or they may still have the copyright and still be legally able to sell on the App Store. Or they might never have had the copyright, but did have the assistance from appropriate Chinese officials to make it look like they did own those copyrights.

There's some serious games that can be played here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>