Apple Makes Questionable Copyright Claim To Pull Down iTunes Contract
from the shameful dept
There had been some buzz a while back when Digital Music News published an entire iTunes Radio contract, which was targeted at smaller indie labels, showing how Apple got to throw its weight around, presenting terms that were very much in Apple's favor over the labels if they wanted to participate in iTunes Radio. However, while it took a few months, Apple's lawyers finally spotted this and they have apparently made a copyright claim to get the contract taken down. I wonder how the small group of indie musicians who always fight for stronger copyrights feel about Apple using copyright to take down rather important information that they should know concerning the sort of deal Apple offers them....While this may be possibly legal under the law, it demonstrates how the law can be used in ways that really have absolutely nothing to do with copyright's purpose. Apple didn't need copyright's incentives to create this contract. There is no market for the contract itself. The purpose in flexing the copyright claim here is one thing and one thing only: censorship. As law professor Eric Goldman explained:
"It's not out of legal bounds to do this. It's just kind of a jerk move. We all know what's happening here. Apple doesn't care about protecting the copyright of contracts. It's using copyright to try and suppress information that it doesn't want made public."That said, I question whether or not this really is a legit takedown. While Apple can claim a copyright on the contract, it seems that DMN has a really strong fair use claim. The purpose was for reporting (a key purpose that supports fair use). The publication was in the public interest. The type of work is a "contract" for which copyright tends to mean very little. Finally, there's no "market" for the contract itself, and thus the impact on the market or the value of the copyright in the item is nothing. The only factor that weighs against it is the fact that the entire contract was used -- but as we've pointed out many times in the past, plenty of cases have been deemed fair use where the "entire work" has been used. This seems like a perfectly strong fair use case, though it might not be worth the legal cost to fight Apple over this, given the company's historical willingness to go absolutely bonkers against publications it doesn't like.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, fair use, itunes, itunes contract
Companies: apple, digital music news
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Like Microsoft's NDA?
Litigation over innovation is where we've landed, since companies no longer think growing the pie is worthwhile, just trying to grab a larger slice of a shrinking one.
It's only a growth business for lawyers and other parasites.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
But for once Mike correctly states (in a negative way) the purpose of copyright: "[This has] absolutely nothing to do with copyright's purpose. Apple didn't need copyright's incentives to create this contract. There is no market for the contract itself." -- So, similarly to his attempt to triangulate "the small group of indie musicians who always fight for stronger copyrights", I expect to see the anti-copyright crowd here revile Mike for his pro-copyright position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Sorry, I'm laughing so hard at the lack of self-awareness here I can barely finish that sentence.
"I expect to see the anti-copyright crowd here revile Mike for his pro-copyright position."
I've noticed you make a lot of false predictions based on strawmen, and never correct yourself on the many times you're proven wrong. I wonder why?
Do you fancy addressing the actual opinions of people? Just once?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
So then you will be happy if the MPAA/RIAA were NEVER allowed copyrights then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
How would you handle the individual artist who wants to assign their copyrights to a corporation? Would you simply remove that option from them?
Also, how would you handle a huge group of artists doing work-for-hire for a enormous project, like say a Disney animated? Would they all get copyrights on the project?
Details Blue. The devil is in the details and you never offer any - just rallying cries.
...and mis-use of a perfectly good system...
Lol. If you mean a "perfectly good system" that isn't really achieving it's initial goal, then yeah, sure.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thats rich, coming from the #1 complainer against anyone who DARES question the almighty power of COPYRIGHT.
Listen sparky, Mike has done more for the issues and problems of copyright than YOU. EVER.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Please don't feed the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
If that's truly your opinion, then you have absolutely no right to bring up the "$200 million movie" argument ever again.
After all, the artists who work on a movie do not, and never did, hold the copyright on the work that they put into that movie. Their work is a "work for hire" under the Copyright Act.
Unless you somehow believe that movie studios are less of a "corporation" than Apple is?
I expect to see the anti-copyright crowd here revile Mike for his pro-copyright position.
The "crowd" here has largely been in agreement with Mike: that copyright must serve the sole purpose of promoting the public good, as is required by the Constitution.
So, no, "we" won't criticize Mike for his "pro-copyright position," since it's the same position that "we" have had all along.
It is people like you who are against copyright. Or at least against the form of copyright espoused by the Founders and codified in the Constitution.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
The constitution primarily limits governmental powers. When the government exceeds a specific mandate -- i.e., a limitation -- such as the purpose of copyright, that is by definition unconstitutional.
Nope, but that doesn't matter for my argument. I'm not talking about what has been found Constitutional or not in court, I'm talking about the plain meaning of the Constitution.
The courts have long had a spotty record of being able to determine constitutionality (according to the courts themselves), and as interpretation gets layered on interpretation over time, they get worse and worse and being able to make this call.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Ummm, John..... whose job is it to interpret the Constitution and rule on its application to laws? Quite plainly, the "plain" meaning of the Constitution has little to do with its application. Otherwise, if you wanted to own a gun, you'd have to be a member of the national guard or a well-regulated militia.
Thanks for playing!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Ummm, ja, it is meant to be simple so everyone can read and understand. Not supposed to need a team of lawyers to be able to read it.
What is your definition of "is?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
average_joe just hates it when due process is enforced.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution:
- House Report on the Copyright Act of 1909
- Feist v. Rural
That's why the cries of "unconstitutional" surrounding various enforcement actions or court decisions fall on deaf ears.
The Courts have traditionally allowed Congress a huge amount of leeway when they determine what does or does not "promote the Progress of Science" (here, meaning "learning" or "culture"). Far too much leeway, IMO, but there is a good reason for this. Congress is supposed to be the voice of the people. And copyright is supposed to be a voluntary contract between the public and authors: the public voluntarily gives up some of its free speech and property rights, granting a monopoly on those rights to authors, in exchange for "broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts." (Twentieth Century Music Corp. v. Aiken.)
Thus, if the people (through Congress) decide what contract is fair, it is largely outside the scope of the Courts to intervene. But it is a fact that Congress is required to make this sort of determination, and in any challenge to copyright statutes, the Courts have determined whether they did. If they did (and they have thus far), then the Courts have a hands-off approach, even if that "determination" is questionable.
Simply put: to the degree (which you overstate) that "the cries of 'unconstitutional' [...] fall on deaf ears," it's primarily because the Courts trust the judgement of Congress. This is unfortunate, because when it comes to copyright law, almost no members of Congress are the "voice of the people." They are the voice of the highest donor, and corporate copyright interests have been throwing money at Congress for decades.
...But this is all a red herring. OOTB believes that all of us would turn on Mike, because he is "pro-copyright" for thinking that copyright must adhere to its Constitutional requirement. He is right that it makes Mike "pro-copyright," to some degree, but wrong that most people here ever thought any differently.
Mike simply believes that copyright must in fact benefit the public - as shown by empirical evidence, and not taken on faith or unproven theories, or from the biased beliefs of rights holders. That does not make him, or anyone who agrees with him, "anti-copyright." But OOTB can't accept that anyone who doesn't adhere to their own beliefs is anything other than "anti-copyright."
I'm just pointing out that he's wrong. Then again, he's always been obviously wrong, about pretty much everything, so maybe I shouldn't have bothered.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
I previously said this:
The purpose of copyright, however, is enshrined in the Constitution
But, thinking about it, this is not quite true either. The reason I thought about it was as a response to this:
The copyright clause simply tasks Congress and provides a rationale.
Promoting the progress is not "a rationale" for the power that Congress is granted. Neither is it really the "purpose" for granting that power.
Rather, promoting the progress is itself the power that is granted to Congress. The Constitution reads "Congress shall have the power to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." It does not read "In order to promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, Congress shall have the power... (etc.)"
Were that the end of it, then Congress could promote the progress in any way it chose - whether through IP laws, or through the establishment of national arts acadamies, or through direct funding of artists, or whatever. But that is not the end of it, for the Constitution restricts the power granted to Congress, by explicitly defining the method by which that power can be exercised: "by securing for limited Times to Authors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
Okay, you've shifted that far. What took you so long?
But, as usual, you're wrong. Copyright is much more complex than banning its ownership by corporations would solve (it wouldn't). The answer is shorter terms and ring-fenced fair use laws. End of problem. I'd go with anything from 15-20 years, with a maximum of 30 or death of the creator.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: My FIX: Corporations should NEVER be allowed ANY copyrights.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: http://www.price-hunt.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright is a monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Copyright is a monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Copyright is a monopoly
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What the...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Contracts have very "thin" copyright protection
As a practical matter, this is only way the contract system works. If you can't review, copy and edit contracts, negotiations become come much more complex. If you can't file them in multiple places, business record retention becomes much more complicated.
This is an implicitly understood part of the legal system. You don't find extra contract terms explicitly describing how the document may be copied and stored (apart from non-disclosure term, which are not copyright related).
I've always considered this to have an element of lawyers ignoring the rules that apply to everyone else. Lawyers can freely crib from each other, or use boilerplate, yet still charge clients for creating documents from scratch if they wish.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If they were going to enter into a deal with Apple, wouldn't they be given this information to read anyway?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You seriously need to keep up with current events. That already happened, twice in the last decade and was apparently settled 6 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Money/Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Link on DMN Changed
Here's the new one:
http://www.digitalmusicnews.com/permalink/2013/10/10/appleondmn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dear Crapple...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]