5 ms·

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 t

by 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.)
  - patio11 16y ago
    I checked the statute. You're right about a DMCA notice / counternotice exchange essentially requiring a minimum of 10 days of the disputed content being offline. Thanks, I like learning things.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
sigzero 16y ago
I don't think Apple is refusing to do anything. The corporate wheels must turn. The spice must flow.
knowtheory 16y ago
Actually, i think that Wolfire would have considerably more success if they pointed out that iCoder's version of Lugaru was distributed via GPL (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source ), and as a result iCoder's app is incompatible with App Store licensing requirements. I initially thought this would be a problem for Wolfire too, but since it's their IP they can relicense it (well, dual-license) for distribution through the AppStore however they wish, dodging the sorts of conflicts that VLC had (over which it was rejected from the iOS app store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 ).
- nocman 16y ago
  I find this interesting -- yours is the second reply I saw to mention GPL being incompatible with App Store licensing requirements. Did I miss something? ID Software released Castle Wolfenstein to the IPhone with it being GPL licensed, and I thought Carmack was actually encouraging people to use the engine to create other games for the iPhone. Obviously folks other than Id Software can't relicense the engine under something other than the GPL, so if GPL licenses won't work on the App Store, how could he expect them to use the engine for iPhone apps? How is it that the GPL is incompatible with the App Store's licensing requirements? This is the first I've heard of that.
  - bbatsell 16y ago
    This explains the FSF's position pretty well: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/fsf-apples-itunes-store-terms-of-service-at-odds-with-gpl.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/fsf-apples-itunes-... More recently, this line of argumentation was used by a VLC contributor to pull a VLC port off the App Store by citing copyright infringement: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_pulled_from_app_store_whats.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_...
    - nocman 16y ago
      Thank you particularly for the arstechnica.com link. The way I read the discussion before, I was expecting the conflict to be originating with Apple (like something in their agreement forbidding the use of GPL'd software or something). But after reading that article I see that it is the FSF that has pointed out how Apple's App Store restrictions make apps using GPL licensed software out of compliance with the GPL. That makes more sense.
thought_alarm 16y ago
Contacting Apple though the blogosphere is a much better way to generate publicity for yourself and your software. This kind of story is always picked up everywhere.

by mustpax 16y ago

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.)
- patio11 16y ago
  I checked the statute. You're right about a DMCA notice / counternotice exchange essentially requiring a minimum of 10 days of the disputed content being offline. Thanks, I like learning things.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]

sigzero 16y ago

I don't think Apple is refusing to do anything. The corporate wheels must turn. The spice must flow.

knowtheory 16y ago

Actually, i think that Wolfire would have considerably more success if they pointed out that iCoder's version of Lugaru was distributed via GPL (http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source http://blog.wolfire.com/2010/05/Lugaru-goes-open-source ), and as a result iCoder's app is incompatible with App Store licensing requirements. I initially thought this would be a problem for Wolfire too, but since it's their IP they can relicense it (well, dual-license) for distribution through the AppStore however they wish, dodging the sorts of conflicts that VLC had (over which it was rejected from the iOS app store: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2082505 ).

nocman 16y ago
I find this interesting -- yours is the second reply I saw to mention GPL being incompatible with App Store licensing requirements. Did I miss something? ID Software released Castle Wolfenstein to the IPhone with it being GPL licensed, and I thought Carmack was actually encouraging people to use the engine to create other games for the iPhone. Obviously folks other than Id Software can't relicense the engine under something other than the GPL, so if GPL licenses won't work on the App Store, how could he expect them to use the engine for iPhone apps? How is it that the GPL is incompatible with the App Store's licensing requirements? This is the first I've heard of that.
- bbatsell 16y ago
  This explains the FSF's position pretty well: http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/fsf-apples-itunes-store-terms-of-service-at-odds-with-gpl.ars http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2010/05/fsf-apples-itunes-... More recently, this line of argumentation was used by a VLC contributor to pull a VLC port off the App Store by citing copyright infringement: http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_pulled_from_app_store_whats.php http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/as_vlc_for_iphone_ipad_...
  - nocman 16y ago
    Thank you particularly for the arstechnica.com link. The way I read the discussion before, I was expecting the conflict to be originating with Apple (like something in their agreement forbidding the use of GPL'd software or something). But after reading that article I see that it is the FSF that has pointed out how Apple's App Store restrictions make apps using GPL licensed software out of compliance with the GPL. That makes more sense.

thought_alarm 16y ago

Contacting Apple though the blogosphere is a much better way to generate publicity for yourself and your software. This kind of story is always picked up everywhere.