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 Court Fines Apple For Copyright Violations

samzenpus posted about a year ago | from the pay-up dept.

China 102

hackingbear writes "The Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People's Court ruled in favor of a group of Chinese authors, and Apple will have to pay them in excess of 730,000 yuan (US$118,000) for infringement. Apple had not gotten permission before selling their books on the Apple App Store, it noted. These cases were the second batch of lawsuits filed against Apple by the Writers' Right Protection Union, which includes prominent members like prolific blogger and novelist Han Han who have become a pop culture star through his creative and cynical writings criticizing the (Chinese) government."

cancel ×

102 comments

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

Hypocritical (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554621)

Apple are hypocritical thieves, nothing more, nothing less.

Re:Hypocritical (2, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43554645)

Apple are hypocritical thieves, nothing more, nothing less.

Just a typical corporation then

Re:Hypocritical (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554767)

No, not really. Apple are far more litigious than most other companies.

That's what makes it so galling when they steal other people's ideas.

Passing off (4, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43554807)

Did Apple steal other people's ideas, or did someone else defraud Apple by submitting someone else's work to iBooks as his or her own? I'm getting hints from an article in China Daily [chinadaily.com.cn] that it may have been the latter.

Given Apple are the gatekeeper (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554853)

Given Apple are the gatekeeper, even if your assertion is true, they're still responsible.

Re:Given Apple are the gatekeeper (2)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year ago | (#43554959)

It's likely they acted "In Good Faith" given a perfectly normal submission. There may not be an equivalence for that Western legal term in Chinese law.

Doesn't matter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555005)

If I buy goods in "good faith" that turn out to be illicit, I'm at fault, at the very least I lose my money and the goods.

If my wifi access is hacked and stuff downloaded, I'm at fault.

Merely because torrents CAN be used to commit copyright infringement, torrents are insisted to ALWAYS be infringement.

So doesn't matter, even in Western Law.

At least not if you're rich enough to move and shake.

Re:Given Apple are the gatekeeper (0)

ozmanjusri (601766) | about a year ago | (#43555055)

It's likely they acted "In Good Faith" given a perfectly normal submission.

Many of the companies sued by Apple could also claim to have acted in good faith. Will Apple refund all the time and money they were forced to spend to defend themselves?

Re:Given Apple are the gatekeeper (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43558307)

this whole thing has nothing to do with copyrights, it has to do with china demanding that apple kneel and kiss the ring before doing business in the country. note that apple has decided to do just that - issuing apology letters for warranty stuff, now this, it's all bogus and they know it but they're humoring the communists so they can sell stuff to the people. i would do the same.

Re:Given Apple are the gatekeeper (1)

Plumpaquatsch (2701653) | about a year ago | (#43561749)

It's likely they acted "In Good Faith" given a perfectly normal submission.

Many of the companies sued by Apple could also claim to have acted in good faith.

Sure. The company with the most US Design Patents thought there was no law against copying somebody else's design.

Re:Passing off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554877)

Huh? That's not what that article says at all. The judge puts it squarely on Apple's feet.

Re:Passing off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554907)

What, judges are now infallible?

Re:Passing off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554969)

Nobody said that, but the article he linked to does not say anything to suggest it was anyone other than Apple who was to blame.

Re:Passing off (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43560267)

Yes it does. Wait, no it doesn't... or it does, I can't decide, I'm an Anonymous Coward with bipolar disorder

What should Apple have done? (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43555195)

The judge puts it squarely on Apple's feet.

Then what would the judge have recommended as a best practice to not do it again? How can Apple be sure that the text that an author submits to iBooks is the author's own work? In fact, how can even the author [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:What should Apple have done? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555253)

Then what would the judge have recommended as a best practice to not do it again?

Did you even read the article you linked to? The judge specifically told them what they should do!

"The writers involved this time include Mai Jia, whose books are often on best-seller lists across the country," he said. "In this way, Apple has the capability to know the uploaded books on its online store violated the writer's copyright."

Read all best-sellers and submissions completely (1, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43555725)

As I interpret what the judge said, Apple has the obligation to hire thousands of human reviewers, make all of them read every book that appears on a best-seller list from cover to cover, and then make one of them read each submitted book from cover to cover. An automated system to just buy and scan the best-sellers and search for substrings in submitted books would not catch submitted books that are paraphrases of a best-seller. I don't see how even a company as big as Apple can afford this much effort.

Re:Read all best-sellers and submissions completel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556587)

As I interpret what the judge said, Apple has the obligation to hire thousands of human reviewers, make all of them read every book that appears on a best-seller list from cover to cover, and then make one of them read each submitted book from cover to cover

How could you possibly interpret it that way?

The books Apple are being prosecuted for are best-sellers! This isn't some obscure, hard to find manuscript we're talking about.

Re:Read all best-sellers and submissions completel (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43557243)

The books Apple are being prosecuted for are best-sellers! This isn't some obscure, hard to find manuscript we're talking about.

Apple would still have to check every submission against every best-seller, which means it'd have to buy every best-seller. And Apple would have to do this by hand in case a submission is a paraphrase of a best-seller.

Re:Read all best-sellers and submissions completel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557429)

What a load of apologist bollocks!

You are so full of shit it must be dribbling down your chin already.

Re:Read all best-sellers and submissions completel (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about a year ago | (#43558363)

is it a crime in china to paraphrase someone else's book? this certainly wouldn't violate copyright here. see weird al for example. everybody says here you can protect implementations but not ideas. to the extent that a written book is the implementation of an idea, what can you do if somebody paraphrases your ideas?

Re:Read all best-sellers and submissions completel (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43561091)

is it a crime in china to paraphrase someone else's book? this certainly wouldn't violate copyright here. see weird al for example.

I don't know about Chinese copyright law, but in general, preparing an unauthorized adaptation violates whatever national statute implements Berne Convention article 12 [wipo.int] . For another, even if parody falls under fair use, "Weird Al" Yankovic routinely seeks permission.

to the extent that a written book is the implementation of an idea, what can you do if somebody paraphrases your ideas?

The selection and arrangement of ideas is part of implementation, and what constitutes an idea tends to be broader in fiction than in nonfiction.

Re: What should Apple have done? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year ago | (#43557177)

It also said "The presiding judge, Feng Gang, said Apple has the duty of checking whether the books uploaded by third-party providers are in line with current laws." Not that Apple gets a pass but the way I'm reading it is that Apple's system of enduring ownership may need to be reworked not that they are not verifying.

Re:What should Apple have done? (1)

miroku000 (2791465) | about a year ago | (#43558849)

The judge puts it squarely on Apple's feet.

Then what would the judge have recommended as a best practice to not do it again? How can Apple be sure that the text that an author submits to iBooks is the author's own work? In fact, how can even the author [wikipedia.org] ?

Apple might not be able to completely avoid it. But, that doesn't mean they don't owe damages. Apple can pay the author all of the illegal profit that they made plus the money they paid the fake author. Then, they can sue the fake author.

Re:What should Apple have done? (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#43560335)

The judge puts it squarely on Apple's feet.

Then what would the judge have recommended as a best practice to not do it again? How can Apple be sure that the text that an author submits to iBooks is the author's own work? In fact, how can even the author [wikipedia.org] ?

And let's not forget that authors often do not own their own books, usually selling the rights to the books to their publisher even before they are written. This applies to musicians and other artists too, usually there is a music label that owns the music. So it can be difficult to determine who owns what, which is why in the US if I upload something that doesn't belong to me I get sued, not the website I uploaded the copyrighted work to, hence the RIAA lawsuits against individuals we hear about often.

Re:Passing off (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about a year ago | (#43560211)

Did Apple steal other people's ideas, or did someone else defraud Apple by submitting someone else's work to iBooks as his or her own? I'm getting hints from an article in China Daily [chinadaily.com.cn] that it may have been the latter.

Agreed. Article says someone else uploaded the books to Apple and those people were profiting from it. Sounds like Apple was an innocent 3rd party, like if I uploaded copyrighted works to Youtube and Youtube gets sued for sharing it instead of me getting sued.

Also, China has copyright laws? Home of bootleg movies and fake purses? Guess those laws only apply to foreign companies, not when China is stealing stuff from other countries.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554721)

I'd say both sides are, in this case.

One of those cases where you with both parties could lose.

So where here is "the other side"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554793)

"I'd say both sides are, in this case."

So where are the authors guild here being hypocritical?

If you're going to whine about how china has so many bootlegs, then Japan is hypocritical (Sony Rootkit abused the copyrights of the ffmpeg team), the USA ignored Charles Dickens' copyrights, Edisons' patents, the UK patents on mechanised looms, etc (and EVERY country has pirates, therefore EVERY country is hypocrites unless they admit and codify that copyrights are invalid).

Re:So where here is "the other side"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557307)

By this logic, and the past copyright violations you've listed, the above accusations of Apple's hypocrisy can also be labeled as "whining"

Re:Hypocritical (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554747)

How is this on Apple? They're a store. Someone _ELSE_ sold a book through Apple that contained material that violated copyrights. Apple didn't produce the book. That's like blaming Barnes & Nobles if a book they sold violated copyright.

Apple haters will be Apple haters, making up bullshit reasons to hate.

Grooveshark (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43554813)

That's like blaming Barnes & Nobles if a book they sold violated copyright.

Or like blaming Grooveshark for its users' actions [slashdot.org] .

Re:Grooveshark (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557387)

Just scrolled through that entire linked article. The sentiment in the comments section of that article was clearly pro-distributor/pro-Grooveshark and anti-copyright/copyright enforcement. If integrity is worth anything around here, we should expect the same today, despite the unpopularity of Apple on this site.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554913)

By that reason The Pirate Bay have no responsibility for what is uploaded to their page.

Re:Hypocritical (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43557879)

The Pirate Bay took responsibility when it decided to publicly flout notices of claimed infringement rather than take down the claimed links. The impression I get here, on the other hand, is that even if Apple does take down infringing books when notified, authors and publishers can still demand damages from Apple for the actions of other users.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557947)

Well, "Pirate Bay is not responsible for what's uploaded" was the popular sentiment here on Slashdot (back when they had torrent files). It's strange then that there is so much hostility directed at another digital distributor.

Re: Hypocritical (1)

Hacking Bear (2908327) | about a year ago | (#43556701)

Excep that Apple approves every submission and take a bite of every sales. Last I tried, I don't need to get approval emailing a file from my ISP.

Re: Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557005)

Barnes & Nobles approves every submission and takes a cut. Or did you think that just by publishing a book you'd get into B&N? Sorry, doesn't work that way. You have to get the approval of their buyers to get in their stores and that's quite difficult, in many cases. And, once there, a portion of the final sales price goes to B&N.

And that's different from Apple how?

Oh. Right. It isn't.

Haters will hate. If you're going to hate Apple, at least find a valid reason to do so and stop making up garbage to justify your dislike of the company.

Re: Hypocritical (1)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43557971)

You have to get the approval of their buyers to get in their stores and that's quite difficult, in many cases.

Not being an author or iTunes user myself, I'm not familiar with the process to publish on the iBookstore. I do know that Apple takes the first $650 because this page [apple.com] states that one must first buy a recent Mac, not a competitor's computer.

Re:Hypocritical (4, Insightful)

slacka (713188) | about a year ago | (#43554943)

Apple are hypocritical thieves, nothing more, nothing less.

The real Hypocrisy is the government and legal system of China. As someone who's lived in China. they have ZERO respect for IP laws. Just downstairs from my apt I had a better selection of western and Chinese pirated DVDs than blockbuster, DVD's of Movies that are still playing in the Cinema. I'd often see the local cops come in to BUY DVDs. This is not some backwards city. This is Shanghai and Shenzhen I'm talking about.

They only reason this law is being enforced is that it's Apple and the government is trying to "send a message". Any Chinese owned store, especially with Communist connections, these violations would be ignored.

Proven 100% wrong here. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555121)

"As someone who's lived in China. they have ZERO respect for IP laws."

Since this entire case is about China respecting IP laws, your assertion is PROVEN wrong.

Re:Proven 100% wrong here. (2, Insightful)

gauauu (649169) | about a year ago | (#43555499)

"As someone who's lived in China. they have ZERO respect for IP laws."

Since this entire case is about China respecting IP laws, your assertion is PROVEN wrong.

No, there's a difference between using IP laws when it's to your advantage, and actually "respecting" them.

Re:Proven 100% wrong here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557057)

posting to remove moderation.

Re:Proven 100% wrong here. (2)

sdsucks (1161899) | about a year ago | (#43556839)

No.

In China, just being a foreign corporation (especially US) is enough to have the law be used against you at times it would not be used against domestic companies.

Re: Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556463)

Your observation is real but your conclusion is wrong. IP laws are hardly enforced because of millions of small merchants like the one near you are selling pirates. Unlike in the US where most of them have been replaced by large chain stores long before advent of internet. A big target will be easier and thus more likely to be caught. Besides do you really think these little street sellers have better connections to the "Communist" than Apple?

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558243)

I was in China about a year ago, and spent a month in Beijing and Xiamen. I don't think I saw any DVD or CD shops anywhere. Not even by the universities, despite the fact that those places used to be brimming with pirated DVD shops.

I even asked someone about it, and he said "Does anyone still use dvds? Everything is on the Internet."

So while your idea that they have zero respect for IP laws might be true (although it really isn't since IP laws are court enforced in China if there's a proper filing of trademarks and IP in China, (see e.g. http://www.chinalawblog.com), I don't believe there are huge pirated dvd shops, and if they are there, they aren't just on "every block" as your post implies.

Re:Hypocritical (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555995)

Ironic then that they're being rapped for Copyright theft by China...

Re:Hypocritical (1)

sdsucks (1161899) | about a year ago | (#43556691)

Haha, ok, but what about China? The really funny part here is China fining a US corporation for copyright violation.

What the heck? (1)

MYakus (1625537) | about a year ago | (#43560385)

China enforcing copywrite laws? Are you kidding? Since when? Did you pause to consider this might be simply preditory? A large part of China's economy and most of China's military is based on copywrite/patent violations! When China starts enforcing intellectual property rights, it will only mean that it has stolen enough.

People's Court? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554649)

I can't believe Judge Wapner ruled like this!

So... (1)

VorpalRodent (964940) | about a year ago | (#43554679)

I'm going to connect some of the dots provided in the summary, perhaps a little too liberally, but it sounds like the Chinese government ruled in favor of writers that are popular for criticizing the Chinese government.

While I'm not their biggest fan, this is a pretty big step for them.

Granted, it's not like they were explicitly ruling in favor of that so much as not wanting American corporations profiting off of things that are legitimately original Chinese works...ie, don't exploit our people unless you pay them for it.

Re:So... (2)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43554745)

Maybe it's got more to do with sticking it to an American company. American companies don't usually have much luck in CHina regarding copyright claims.

Re:So... (0)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43554819)

In the past, they used to stick it to american or any non-chinese company by allowing them to build a factory in china to produce what they make, and then nationalizing that factory and kicking that company out of china. La voila! Instant new means of production for some item they were not capable of manufacturing before!

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555267)

"La voila! Instant new means ...."

How sophisticated, using French to express yourself. But you should be pardoned for your French since it is just wrong. "Et voilà" is the expression (that should be "a grave" just in case something eats the correct character).

Re:So... (1)

Afrosheen (42464) | about a year ago | (#43558173)

Number of people that care: zero. Number of francophiles that may care: estimated to be >=1.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43558845)

This could only be true if Francophiles aren't human. But since I'm not a Francophile, I hate French people and the language (which I had to learn for 4 years) and as far as I know I'm a human, your statement must be wrong. But anyway thanks for letting us know that you don't care.

Re:So... (2)

sdsucks (1161899) | about a year ago | (#43556881)

Yup.

Much of China's economy has been built on that concept, and also the idea of working with foreign corporations only long enough to learn their trade secrets and manufacturing techniques - once there is nothing more to learn, it is common for the Chinese companies to stop doing any business with their foreign partner.

Of course, combine this with short-sighted American CEO's concerned only with quarterly profit, and China wins every time.

well Apple did F**K up. (4, Insightful)

leuk_he (194174) | about a year ago | (#43554821)

Somebody uploaded best-sellers to the store. It is like some john doe uploads the (chinese) Dan Brown books to iTunes, and apple get 30% of all the sales.

Too bad there are so many anti-chinese sentiments here. But this is really a case of chinese seaking part of apple making a boo boo.

Note that in AmericaN law would allow up to $150,000 per infringment, the chise case was for multiple infringements, but the article does not state how much.

Re:well Apple did F**K up. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43554899)

If you would have bothered to read OP's comment he is clearly trying to suggest that the government is for some reason becoming more open to to it's criticas by siding with them in a copyright suit which they historically side with their own regardless of the circumstances.

> it sounds like the Chinese government ruled in favor of writers that are popular for criticizing the Chinese government.

> While I'm not their biggest fan, this is a pretty big step for them.

Re:well Apple did F**K up. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555061)

You sound correct about the op. The chineese become more open to critizism? Noooo way dragonbreath. They would lose to much face. Thats still big there. Rulers/leaders/those in charge of the companies, are adopting american rules of economic warfare/welfare. Which is a open form of slavery of mankind. Where as in the past, the slave was a property of one owner, and they had to care for it, now it is the State, And no one is respooonsible foor the slaves.
Now of the leadership caste. The modern slave owners, control governments.

Re:well Apple did F**K up. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43555221)

Yea, they love the "American" system of capitalism, they just don't like it when outsiders own those profits.
They have in the past gone so far as to build facilities there then nationalize them.

Re:well Apple did F**K up. (1)

Rick Zeman (15628) | about a year ago | (#43562703)

Yea, they love the "American" system of capitalism, they just don't like it when outsiders own those profits.
They have in the past gone so far as to build facilities there then nationalize them.

Yeah, in China, the government owns the businesses. Here in the US, the businesses own the government.

Re:So... (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about a year ago | (#43554891)

American company? I'm not so sure about that. Every apple product I have has "Made in China" on it.

Re:So... (1)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43554917)

Wait till you hear where mom's apple pie is made.

Re:So... (2, Insightful)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year ago | (#43554977)

Apple is not local to China.
Just because something was made in CHina, does not mean it was not done for a foreign company.

Re:So... (1)

sessamoid (165542) | about a year ago | (#43558863)

American company? I'm not so sure about that. Every apple product I have has "Made in China" on it.

I guess Dell isn't an American company either, then.

Re:So... (4, Interesting)

SmSlDoo (414128) | about a year ago | (#43554763)

My guess is that it is a ploy by the Chineese government to force the works to be removed from the App Store.

If they requested directly to have the works removed they would get denied, but if they claim infringement towards the author they can get traction.

Re:So... (2)

Imrik (148191) | about a year ago | (#43554773)

It could also be seen as them trying to reduce the spread of these writers works.

In other news... (5, Funny)

olip85 (1770514) | about a year ago | (#43554705)

...North Korean court fines Canadian tourist for human rights violations.

Re:In other news... (3, Insightful)

girlinatrainingbra (2738457) | about a year ago | (#43554753)

and in other news, the USA chides other countries for human rights violations while we still operate Guantanamo...

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555749)

Guantanamo is in Cuba and living standards inside of the facility are better than outside.

Well, maybe not exactly, but you have to admit that this sounds like something the U.S. government would claim and/or believe.

Rush's Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555789)

and in other news, the USA chides other countries for human rights violations while we still operate Guantanamo...

Suddenly I find sympathy with Mr. Limbaugh. The blame America crowd isn't wrong, just boring. So many fucked up things going on, like cutting funding for America's most needy, continued opposition to a more fair health care system, righteous insanity blocking background checks for would-be weapon owners, a fucking huge system for oppressing minorities disguised as a war on drungs. And you're worried about Gitmo

America lost it when we invaded Iraq. Over 100k dead for no good reason. Just when the world was starting to forget about Vietnam. The Koran Club of Cuba is a tiny little freakshow compared to the misery we inflict in and out of our borders. Gitmo is a weak-ass talking point and there is no solution for it anyway. Move on

Re:Rush's Right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556477)

> and there is no solution for it anyway

Sure there is, try everyone in ordinary courts, those who don't get a judgment against them and aren't welcome anywhere else get permanent residency in the US.
Not acceptable? Yeah, that's probably what most would say. But if you messed up you'd usually have to live with some inconvenient results. Gitmo is such an issue because at the very least the political caste of the US (and maybe a lot of the people living there) have no willingness to accept that mistakes have consequences.

Re:In other news... (1)

poity (465672) | about a year ago | (#43557601)

We're likely on the same side regarding the issue of ethics at Guantanamo, but unless there are Guananamo inmates who are imprisoned for merely the words they've written , it's not an appropriate comparison.

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43559251)

They've been imprisoned MERELY FOR LIVING IN AFGHANISTAN.

Top that.

'''''''''''''''''''''

Re:In other news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555635)

Google how Canada treats its native population. Particularly their history of aboriginal school system abuse. Canada is indeed a prett y terrible country for human rights.

El To The Oh To The El (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554727)

What more can you say?

Apple got a taste of their own medicine. From China!

No OCILLA (2)

tepples (727027) | about a year ago | (#43554771)

The China Daily article "Copyrights take a bite out of Apple" [chinadaily.com.cn] quotes someone: "The verification must rely on human power." It states that the judge assumed that all service providers should have known the entire text of all bestsellers: "'The writers involved this time include Mai Jia, whose books are often on best-seller lists across the country,' he said. 'In this way, Apple has the capability to know the uploaded books on its online store violated the writer's copyright.'" It appears that China lacks a counterpart to the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act (OCILLA), the arguably "good" part of the DMCA, namely a standardized takedown procedure that online service providers can rely on to avoid liability for copyright infringements committed by their users. (A recent ruling against Grooveshark [slashdot.org] showed that the United States also appears to lack this for pre-1972 sound recordings.)

A humble verdict (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43554781)

If it was a Chinese company being sued in America, the bill would've landed on $118 billion.

Re:A humble verdict (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557769)

If it was a Chinese company being sued in China, oh wait it wouldn't happen.

China respecting IP? (1)

hsmith (818216) | about a year ago | (#43554841)

Is this April 1? Oh wait , it is a Chinese entity making the claim, so they care. Stealing American/Euro IP and mass producing it if a-ok, just don't do it to them!

Seriously? (-1, Troll)

hyades1 (1149581) | about a year ago | (#43554905)

The Chinese suing over copyright violation? That's like a convicted pedophile suing the local day care centre for not hiring him.

Re:Seriously? (1)

deadweight (681827) | about a year ago | (#43555619)

bwahahaha - you owe me a keyboard ROFLMAO

I fail to see... (0)

scotts13 (1371443) | about a year ago | (#43554919)

...where they write about what the Chinese government is doing to the people who stole the copyrighted materials, presented them as their own, and reaped the other 70% of the proceeds. Same thing as the Amazon/1984 debacle. Apple's only error is (perhaps) in not doing "enough" to keep OTHER people from breaking Chinese copyright laws.

Double-Take (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year ago | (#43554941)

Thought for a second I'd read that headline backwards.

sexy costume (-1, Offtopic)

jencostu94 (2908207) | about a year ago | (#43554971)

[url=http://www.cheapsexycostumesale.com]cheap sexy costume for sale[/url]

irony (3, Informative)

shentino (1139071) | about a year ago | (#43555135)

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the piracy capital of the world managed to sue a US company? And win?

Of all the places to lose a copyright infringement case as a defendant...how the hell did it happen in China of all places?

Re:irony (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | about a year ago | (#43555281)

Does anyone besides me find it ironic that the piracy capital of the world managed to sue a US company? And win?

Of all the places to lose a copyright infringement case as a defendant...how the hell did it happen in China of all places?

Simple. Copyright holder sues unlicensed distributor of content. Funny how those crazy laws work, eh? I mean, wow! It's like they totally disregarded the American and Chinese "Pirate" citizens, and just had a case over copyright infringement between businesses that didn't wind up costing some huge ridiculous millions in damages. That's INSANE! LOL, silly China.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43559215)

What you have just said is what I would refer to as "distilled insanity."

But thank you for plugging your pro-copyright (not that I'm actually 100% against them) agenda. On a post that was pointing out the irony of a well documented fact. Chinese companies violate trademarks with utter impunity with no government response. I work at a small metal shop in Garland, Texas for example. Three designs in 2 years have been stolen by Chinese companies for punch-and-die tools.

The lesser Qinghai court hasn't even so much as responded to legal documents sent. All 20 of them, and from a practicing Chinese lawyer no less.

So it is indeed ironic that a company originating in said country would sue the company most commonly infringed upon (in China) for infringement. Look up "fake apple stores china" in google, and you'll get a bit of a sad sad laugh. I don't even like Apple and this angers me.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556259)

United States of America is probably still the "piracy" capital. China is just doing what the US did when it was becoming a super power...

You arrogant, ignorant fuck.

Re:irony (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43559111)

Was literally typing this out as you said it. I assumed the first post was going to be something like "the people who violate trademarks, copyrights, etc with impunity are doing this...is "chinese" a typo" or something. This is incredibly ironic.

Today was a good day! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555175)

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3u3zil/

IT IS 1000 WON TO A DOLLAR !! STILL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555245)

So a whopping 730 American Dollars !! That is a lot to them !!

Re:IT IS 1000 WON TO A DOLLAR !! STILL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556597)

So a whopping 730 American Dollars !! That is a lot to them !!

Come on man, the figures and actual currencies are right there in the post; 730 000 Yuan = 180 000 USD.

Re:IT IS 1000 WON TO A DOLLAR !! STILL !! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43557159)

Juan Won Yuan?

Do they have sweepstakes in China? Who does sweepstakes anymore? Lottery? They got that there? Anyone. Excuse me. Any yuan? Couldn't Apple buy this judge?

Anyone got change for a Million? (0)

geraldkw (534863) | about a year ago | (#43555313)

I am guessing Apple couldn't pay right away since a 1,000,000 Yuan note is probably the smallest bill any of their people carry.

Now that's rich (-1, Flamebait)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year ago | (#43555523)

A country that locks up writers, forbids them to publish their works and does everything possible to eliminate certain topics from public eye, suing someone for distributing works of... waitasec.

Could THAT be the real reason?

Pot, meet kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43555847)

Who are you calling black?!

Re:Pot, meet kettle (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43556367)

Alert Mexico City! El Pot-kettle-black is erupting again!

China Getting There (1)

inglorion_on_the_net (1965514) | about a year ago | (#43556145)

1. Criticise government
2. Become popular
3. Sue people
4. Government's court sides with you

I see some positive news in there. Apparently, you can be critical of the government, and still have the government support you.

chinese copyright prosecution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43561067)

Pot please call 1-800-Kettle.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>