2 ms·

> Suppose that a developer discovers a bug in the Apple Music API that allows songs to be played without paying for the Apple Music subscription. Are you claimi

> Suppose that a developer discovers a bug in the Apple Music API that allows songs to be played without paying for the Apple Music subscription. Are you claiming that if a developer writes an app to exploit this bug, they're not doing anything illegal? It's ok to get Apple Music without paying, as long as you're just "calling an API"? That would be illegal, yes, but for an entirely different reason (DRM bypass to get copyrighted material), not because it's calling an existing API. It's not the case for 99% of apps. > In any case, you're still ignoring distribution. You start with the assumption that a binary is already on the iPhone. The technology is already inside the iPhone, but the third-party app is not. Distribution is an entirely different legal matter than personal use. The third-party app does not contain any Apple-owned or licensed technology just because it's programmed to make use of it once inside a phone, and there's no IP right to control distribution of material that uses proprietary technology if that technology is not actually in the distributed material. The only barrier is Apple's own actions in how they programmed iOS to reject unsigned code and their developer program, not a legal one based on IP.

lapcat 2mo ago
My point is this: you can charge for API use. You can set terms and conditions for API use. You can charge some API users and allow others free usage. That's up to the API vendor. I simply don't accept your dubious claim that one person's legal API usage automatically allows that one person to subcontract API usage to another, i.e., a third-party developer. And I'd guess that your experience as a lawyer is about as extensive as your experience as an iOS developer.
- EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
  The individual instance of API functionality is owned by the user, even if the intellectual property itself is owned by Apple. What makes the user's API usage legal is the fact that they own the device and the individual iOS copy inside, not the fact that Apple allows personal use. The EULA is superfluous, an iDevice purchaser is inherently entitled to make use of the iOS functionality merely by posessing the device. Apple can charge for API use in the sense that they physically can, not in the sense that the law only allows that arrangement. The law does not forbid people from developing unauthorized accessories to products, full stop. It only protects IP from being redistributed. The hook that allows Apple to charge for API usage by developers is a technical one, not a legal one. And there's no need to go for the ad-hominems that you have been going for since the beginning. Why such hostility?

lapcat 2mo ago

My point is this: you can charge for API use. You can set terms and conditions for API use. You can charge some API users and allow others free usage. That's up to the API vendor. I simply don't accept your dubious claim that one person's legal API usage automatically allows that one person to subcontract API usage to another, i.e., a third-party developer. And I'd guess that your experience as a lawyer is about as extensive as your experience as an iOS developer.

EMIRELADERO 2mo ago
The individual instance of API functionality is owned by the user, even if the intellectual property itself is owned by Apple. What makes the user's API usage legal is the fact that they own the device and the individual iOS copy inside, not the fact that Apple allows personal use. The EULA is superfluous, an iDevice purchaser is inherently entitled to make use of the iOS functionality merely by posessing the device. Apple can charge for API use in the sense that they physically can, not in the sense that the law only allows that arrangement. The law does not forbid people from developing unauthorized accessories to products, full stop. It only protects IP from being redistributed. The hook that allows Apple to charge for API usage by developers is a technical one, not a legal one. And there's no need to go for the ad-hominems that you have been going for since the beginning. Why such hostility?