6 ms·

Counterfeit Game Sold on Apple's App Store

143 points by angrycoder 16y ago

TeHCrAzY 16y ago
The title on the post is "Counterfeit Lugaru on Apple's App Store", which is slightly less inflammatory, and much more correct.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
  - ugh 16y ago
    The one used for the submission is more confusing (while not being much shorter), though. I don’t think you should edit the titles of submissions if it makes them less clear. (Technically, the title of the original article is not very clear because hardly anyone will know what “Lugaru” is. “Counterfeit Game on Apple's App Store” seems like a perfect, minimally edited and very clear title to me.)
    - angrycoder 16y ago
      Updated the title per your suggestion.
mustpax 16y ago
I still don't understand why they don't send a DMCA takedown request to Apple and call it a day. Have they already done this yet Apple is refusing to takedown the offending app? I highly doubt Apple would take on that sort of liability.
- patio11 16y ago
  I think the probable outcome is "Wolfire -> Apple: DMCA", "Apple -> Pirate: You've been DMCAed.", "Pirate -> Apple: Counter-notification. We believe we have a valid license. The DMCA says that they have to sue us to prove otherwise.", "Apple -> Wolfire: Well crikey, they're right." That leaves Apple legally covered, although I would bet they terminate the pirates under the It's Our System And You're Causing Us Negative PR So Eff Off provision.
  - anonymous54321 16y ago
    This is a throw away account. I am familiar with this process. After the filing of the DMCA counter notification, the original developer has 10 days to file suit. Then apple will take the offending material off the store.
    - bad_user 16y ago
      So you've setup a throw away account, just so you can answer a question related to the DMCA counter notification? Do you work for iCoder or something?
  - jedsmith 16y ago
    No, that's not correct at all. Under OCILLA/DMCA, counter-notification cannot be accepted by your provider and is not legally usable unless access to the alleged offending material has been completely prevented. 17 USC 512(d)(3). The material must stay removed completely for at minimum 10 (ten) business days and at most 14 (fourteen) business days to allow the complainant to file suit or otherwise obtain an injunction if they so desire. 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) and (C). That's with a counter notice; without one, the material can never be restored. So, your scenario then becomes: - Wolfire > Apple: DMCA - Apple > Pirate: We have received a DMCA and removed it - Pirate > Apple: Counter notice - Apple > Wolfire: Here's a counter, we will restore in 10 days unless you sue - (10 business days) - Apple > Pirate: OK, it's back After the waiting period, you or the provider can restore access with the DMCA's blessing. DMCA only requires providers to "act expeditiously" to remove access to material, so what "expeditiously" means is left to interpretation. I doubt Apple would leave anything up for long, though. When you get a serious DMCA complaint -- meaning, not one of the automatic-fire BitTorrent ones from MediaSentry or whatever -- try a counter-notice without removing the content and see what your provider does. If they abide by the law, they'll immediately reject it and ask you politely to remove the content, or they will for you. But wait, you say, doesn't that encourage frivolous DMCA complaints to remove content from the Internet that I do not agree with? All I have to do is file a well-prepared DMCA complaint that asserts copyright and the content is federally required to disappear? Answer: Yes. (IANAL, but I have researched it extensively to draft policy.)
benjoffe 16y ago
I wonder how many people visiting their site are going to take this opportunity to get the game at a discount... hopefully not many.
- rchowe 16y ago
  Apple's response when they decide to take it down will be the interesting part. We'll find out if there is a kill switch or blacklist in the mac app store.
  - arn 16y ago
    not really. stuff gets taken down off the App Store all the time due to legal issues and obvious copyright infringement. the apps get removed (you can't download them anymore), but anyone who has downloaded it can still use their copy.
    - rchowe 16y ago
      http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10013322-37.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10013322-37.html Supposedly there is some sort of kill switch functionality in the iOS app store, and I haven't heard about copyright infringement to the level of taking someone else's game and redistributing it before. In my mind, the best case scenario is to refund everyone's money and take the game off the market, uninstalling from computers. The only backlash you receive is the press about the kill switch functionality and the whole "dude, where's my game" moments that people will have.
      - arn 16y ago
        Oh, there's certainly a kill switch. Jobs admitted to it during an interview, but it hasn't been used. The closest App Store comparison is probably Abuse (source code released into public domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_(video_game) ): http://appshopper.com/games/alien-abuse http://appshopper.com/games/alien-abuse (pulled from app store) http://appshopper.com/games/abuse-classic http://appshopper.com/games/abuse-classic (official version) reason: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=426791&postcount=238 http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=426791&post... Long story short, Eurocenter did not have the right to use the sound effects, registered levels (levels 5 and up), or the Abuse trademark in their game "Alien Abuse". So very similar circumstances. And the original app was never killswitched.
mwg66 16y ago
Hang on, if the claim is that the source is under the GPL (and I'm not that convinced saying the characters are excluded is sufficient - a trademark violation would be more sensible) surely all they need to claim is a GPL violation (no source distribution) and cite the previous incompatibilities between the GPL and App Store. As copyright holders they can later resubmit the game under a different license.
bermanoid 16y ago
tl;dr: the art/sound/etc. assets may have been accidentally released under the GPL because of a file omission in the .zip version of the source release. From the article: "According to Kotaku, they are talking about the GPL release of the source code for a number of the Humble Indie Bundle games, namely this post. However, the license made it very clear that the authors retained all rights to the assets, characters, and everything else aside from the code itself." Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I might be wrong here about some things, so please step in and correct me if anyone knows better. So, here's the thing. Looking at the source .zip linked at http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source (the .zip file itself is at http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip, so that's an official release), I see COPYING.txt, the generic GPLv2 statement, sitting at the root of the project .zip. By custom, I would naturally assume that unless that license is overridden somewhere, it's the license in effect for all copyrightable materials included in nested directories. I'm not positive about this legally speaking, but I'm pretty sure that if the code is distributed in such a fashion, and most people familiar with code would interpret the license to apply in such a manner (to everything in the subdirectories, unless overridden somewhere within the released code), I can safely assume I've been granted that license. Now, I fully believe that Wolfire never intended to release the art/sound/character assets under the GPL. But - and I encourage people to check for themselves to make sure I'm not missing something, I could definitely be wrong - there appears to be no license statement anywhere inside that particular source distribution (http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip) that puts any of those assets under another license. I suspect the file at http://hg.icculus.org/icculus/lugaru/file/97b303e79826/CONTENT-LICENSE.txt http://hg.icculus.org/icculus/lugaru/file/97b303e79826/CONTE..., the one that sets the license terms on that data, is what the author of the post was referring to when mentioning the clear license terms. But someone forgot to copy it from the hg repo into the .zip file before they released it. Unfortunately, they didn't forget to put COPYING.txt in at the root, which means GPL2 for the whole shebang (the default license would have been none at all, but for the presence of that file). If I'm right, and no other license is hiding somewhere, then as far as I can tell (not a lawyer) those assets are under GPL. It doesn't matter if comments elsewhere clearly prove that the GPL was only supposed to cover the code, a release was made and linked by the original copyright holder with a license statement whose clearest reading grants the user a license to everything under the GPL. Prevailing wisdom seems to be that you can't take back a GPL license, so yes, that means that all the assets in this game have been accidentally open sourced. There's still a trademark claim, of course, this joker can't legally call his game Lugaru, but if he renames it, he's within his rights to try to sell it as long as he branched from the .zip release (though the GPL issue might keep it off the App Store).
tibbon 16y ago
I wish Apple had a 'flag application' button in the App Store to flag things that seem amiss and report them. If so, I'd have flagged this for being GPL software on the app store.
- jedsmith 16y ago
  > If so, I'd have flagged this for being GPL software on the app store. Which is probably why they don't have a flag application button.
  - tibbon 16y ago
    Perhaps, but it seems to be a pretty legit reason to pull something. edit: instead of downvotes, i'd love a response to understand why someone should be allowed to put a GPL application on the app store and not distribute their code (and that you can't copy the application and send it to others, etc). Seems to be a pretty clear GPL violation.

143 points by angrycoder 16y ago

The title on the post is "Counterfeit Lugaru on Apple's App Store", which is slightly less inflammatory, and much more correct.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
deleted 16y ago
[deleted]
- ugh 16y ago
  The one used for the submission is more confusing (while not being much shorter), though. I don’t think you should edit the titles of submissions if it makes them less clear. (Technically, the title of the original article is not very clear because hardly anyone will know what “Lugaru” is. “Counterfeit Game on Apple's App Store” seems like a perfect, minimally edited and very clear title to me.)
  - angrycoder 16y ago
    Updated the title per your suggestion.

mustpax 16y ago

I still don't understand why they don't send a DMCA takedown request to Apple and call it a day. Have they already done this yet Apple is refusing to takedown the offending app? I highly doubt Apple would take on that sort of liability.

patio11 16y ago
I think the probable outcome is "Wolfire -> Apple: DMCA", "Apple -> Pirate: You've been DMCAed.", "Pirate -> Apple: Counter-notification. We believe we have a valid license. The DMCA says that they have to sue us to prove otherwise.", "Apple -> Wolfire: Well crikey, they're right." That leaves Apple legally covered, although I would bet they terminate the pirates under the It's Our System And You're Causing Us Negative PR So Eff Off provision.
- anonymous54321 16y ago
  This is a throw away account. I am familiar with this process. After the filing of the DMCA counter notification, the original developer has 10 days to file suit. Then apple will take the offending material off the store.
  - bad_user 16y ago
    So you've setup a throw away account, just so you can answer a question related to the DMCA counter notification? Do you work for iCoder or something?
- jedsmith 16y ago
  No, that's not correct at all. Under OCILLA/DMCA, counter-notification cannot be accepted by your provider and is not legally usable unless access to the alleged offending material has been completely prevented. 17 USC 512(d)(3). The material must stay removed completely for at minimum 10 (ten) business days and at most 14 (fourteen) business days to allow the complainant to file suit or otherwise obtain an injunction if they so desire. 17 USC 512(g)(2)(B) and (C). That's with a counter notice; without one, the material can never be restored. So, your scenario then becomes: - Wolfire > Apple: DMCA - Apple > Pirate: We have received a DMCA and removed it - Pirate > Apple: Counter notice - Apple > Wolfire: Here's a counter, we will restore in 10 days unless you sue - (10 business days) - Apple > Pirate: OK, it's back After the waiting period, you or the provider can restore access with the DMCA's blessing. DMCA only requires providers to "act expeditiously" to remove access to material, so what "expeditiously" means is left to interpretation. I doubt Apple would leave anything up for long, though. When you get a serious DMCA complaint -- meaning, not one of the automatic-fire BitTorrent ones from MediaSentry or whatever -- try a counter-notice without removing the content and see what your provider does. If they abide by the law, they'll immediately reject it and ask you politely to remove the content, or they will for you. But wait, you say, doesn't that encourage frivolous DMCA complaints to remove content from the Internet that I do not agree with? All I have to do is file a well-prepared DMCA complaint that asserts copyright and the content is federally required to disappear? Answer: Yes. (IANAL, but I have researched it extensively to draft policy.)

benjoffe 16y ago

I wonder how many people visiting their site are going to take this opportunity to get the game at a discount... hopefully not many.

rchowe 16y ago
Apple's response when they decide to take it down will be the interesting part. We'll find out if there is a kill switch or blacklist in the mac app store.
- arn 16y ago
  not really. stuff gets taken down off the App Store all the time due to legal issues and obvious copyright infringement. the apps get removed (you can't download them anymore), but anyone who has downloaded it can still use their copy.
  - rchowe 16y ago
    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10013322-37.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-10013322-37.html Supposedly there is some sort of kill switch functionality in the iOS app store, and I haven't heard about copyright infringement to the level of taking someone else's game and redistributing it before. In my mind, the best case scenario is to refund everyone's money and take the game off the market, uninstalling from computers. The only backlash you receive is the press about the kill switch functionality and the whole "dude, where's my game" moments that people will have.
    - arn 16y ago
      Oh, there's certainly a kill switch. Jobs admitted to it during an interview, but it hasn't been used. The closest App Store comparison is probably Abuse (source code released into public domain, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_(video_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abuse_(video_game) ): http://appshopper.com/games/alien-abuse http://appshopper.com/games/alien-abuse (pulled from app store) http://appshopper.com/games/abuse-classic http://appshopper.com/games/abuse-classic (official version) reason: http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=426791&postcount=238 http://forums.toucharcade.com/showpost.php?p=426791&post... Long story short, Eurocenter did not have the right to use the sound effects, registered levels (levels 5 and up), or the Abuse trademark in their game "Alien Abuse". So very similar circumstances. And the original app was never killswitched.

mwg66 16y ago

Hang on, if the claim is that the source is under the GPL (and I'm not that convinced saying the characters are excluded is sufficient - a trademark violation would be more sensible) surely all they need to claim is a GPL violation (no source distribution) and cite the previous incompatibilities between the GPL and App Store. As copyright holders they can later resubmit the game under a different license.

bermanoid 16y ago

tl;dr: the art/sound/etc. assets may have been accidentally released under the GPL because of a file omission in the .zip version of the source release. From the article: "According to Kotaku, they are talking about the GPL release of the source code for a number of the Humble Indie Bundle games, namely this post. However, the license made it very clear that the authors retained all rights to the assets, characters, and everything else aside from the code itself." Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, I might be wrong here about some things, so please step in and correct me if anyone knows better. So, here's the thing. Looking at the source .zip linked at http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source (the .zip file itself is at http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip, so that's an official release), I see COPYING.txt, the generic GPLv2 statement, sitting at the root of the project .zip. By custom, I would naturally assume that unless that license is overridden somewhere, it's the license in effect for all copyrightable materials included in nested directories. I'm not positive about this legally speaking, but I'm pretty sure that if the code is distributed in such a fashion, and most people familiar with code would interpret the license to apply in such a manner (to everything in the subdirectories, unless overridden somewhere within the released code), I can safely assume I've been granted that license. Now, I fully believe that Wolfire never intended to release the art/sound/character assets under the GPL. But - and I encourage people to check for themselves to make sure I'm not missing something, I could definitely be wrong - there appears to be no license statement anywhere inside that particular source distribution (http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip http://akamai.wolfire.com/humble/src/lugaru-srcs-final.zip) that puts any of those assets under another license. I suspect the file at http://hg.icculus.org/icculus/lugaru/file/97b303e79826/CONTENT-LICENSE.txt http://hg.icculus.org/icculus/lugaru/file/97b303e79826/CONTE..., the one that sets the license terms on that data, is what the author of the post was referring to when mentioning the clear license terms. But someone forgot to copy it from the hg repo into the .zip file before they released it. Unfortunately, they didn't forget to put COPYING.txt in at the root, which means GPL2 for the whole shebang (the default license would have been none at all, but for the presence of that file). If I'm right, and no other license is hiding somewhere, then as far as I can tell (not a lawyer) those assets are under GPL. It doesn't matter if comments elsewhere clearly prove that the GPL was only supposed to cover the code, a release was made and linked by the original copyright holder with a license statement whose clearest reading grants the user a license to everything under the GPL. Prevailing wisdom seems to be that you can't take back a GPL license, so yes, that means that all the assets in this game have been accidentally open sourced. There's still a trademark claim, of course, this joker can't legally call his game Lugaru, but if he renames it, he's within his rights to try to sell it as long as he branched from the .zip release (though the GPL issue might keep it off the App Store).

tibbon 16y ago

I wish Apple had a 'flag application' button in the App Store to flag things that seem amiss and report them. If so, I'd have flagged this for being GPL software on the app store.

jedsmith 16y ago
> If so, I'd have flagged this for being GPL software on the app store. Which is probably why they don't have a flag application button.
- tibbon 16y ago
  Perhaps, but it seems to be a pretty legit reason to pull something. edit: instead of downvotes, i'd love a response to understand why someone should be allowed to put a GPL application on the app store and not distribute their code (and that you can't copy the application and send it to others, etc). Seems to be a pretty clear GPL violation.