Yes, that's what I said. Thanks!
Umm, no. you said "They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening."
The review process is not to prevent THAT soft of thing.
According to Wikipedia, the safe harbor clause only applies to "1) not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity, 2) not be aware of the presence of infringing material or know any facts or circumstances that would make infringing material apparent, and 3) upon receiving notice from copyright owners or their agents, act expeditiously to remove the purported infringing material." Isn't Apple benefiting directly from the infringing behavior? That is, the 30% cut they get from every purchase of said app.
I'd argue (as Apple probably would as well) that they might be losing out due to the infringing behavior - anyone who buys the pirated version is paying less than someone buying the actual version, so Apple is losing their cut of the higher cost version.
Apple is supporting this piracy by not responding to the emails from the owner of the original artwork/data.
Investigating before responding != supporting. From the sound of it, only a few days have passed - and I'm sure he'd be pretty pissed off if the OTHER guy e-mail Apple first and Apple immediately pulled his app without an investigation.
Whilst it's inexcusable that they've been ripped off on their assets, it was rather foolish to release the source code for a currently marketed game.
That remains to be seen. This could well open up the opportunity for a lawsuit against Apple, whose policies are not only a limitation on what they will accept, but also a promise of sorts to other developers that they will not accept those things. They are facilitating copyright infringement and they have a review process which is allegedly there to prevent this sort of thing from happening.
The review process is not there to do anything of the sort. The review process is to make a reasonable attempt to ensure that the application doesn't do anything harmful and that it follows all of the programming and content related guidelines set forth by Apple. The review process makes no claims that it will prevent similar apps from appearing or that the apps are actually good.
The very first thing Apple has you sign/agree to when you sign up for the developer program is something that basically states that you certify that you have the rights to publish anything you submit. An agreement in place to make it so Apple doesn't have to waste countless hours checking if the person submitting the app actually has the rights to. The developer that published this broke that agreement and will likely have their account terminated.
They had to change a few features and re-brand it to avoid confusing it with the full version, but you can already download it:
There's no ads in that version! Where are my ads?!?!?
And of course there's the fact that framing your neighbor makes you a huge asshole.
So, killing your wife = not a huge asshole. Framing your neighbor for killing your wife = huge asshole. Glad we could make the distinction
Shareware games of old didn't have ads in them, but many "free" apps on both iOS and Android do.
The apps that have ads in them wouldn't have been free in the first place if they couldn't put ads in them (or they would be functionally limited demos if they were free).
I have found that smart people are really bad at simple, repetitive, boring tasks.
They get bored, start daydreaming, and make mistakes.
I find that they automate away the problem, and then spend their time doing whatever they want while pretending to work.
Just make all the questions of the type where you have to regurgitate some copyrighted information (say a piece of lyrics), which IBM won't be able to store.
The computer will sit there doing nothing while the human is charged with illegal performances of copyrighted material and is forced to pay insane fines. How is that winning?
They lose the election and they're forced to leave the state!
Sounds more like a lose one, win one to me
In Pennsylvania it is illegal to sell alcohol to a VIP (visibly intoxicated person). If you fail the breathalyser test then sale is denied.
Wouldn't the fact that the state employee is looking at them via a CCTV verify if they are VISIBLY intoxicated?
>The reason they need a breathalyzer in the store is to ensure a "properly trained" state employee is approving the sale, not some punk at a register.
I am still entirely unclear on how a breathalyzer ensures that the person selling the alcohol is a state employee and not some kid at a register (unless the theory goes that they were having the kids who work the register use the vending machine and then selling the alcohol to the actual customer and the kids are always drunk and thus are foiled by the breathalyzer).
The hardest part of climbing the ladder of success is getting through the crowd at the bottom.
