Apple received instructions from a Chinese court to pay eight Chinese writers and two companies 1.03 million yuan or $165,000 U.S. because the California company’s online store was allegedly selling their content without a license.
The order was passed in the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court and it stated that the maker of the popular iPhone device had been in violation of the copyrights of the authors because they allowed their work to be distributed through the App Store. The case had been created after eight lawsuits filed by the different authors and their publishers were rolled into one hearing. Originally the authors of the disputed content had asked for $1.9 million in compensation but the court ruling awarded a much smaller figure. One company was awarded $97,500 while the second received $3,450. Author Han Ailian was given $30,000.
Carolyn Wu, an Apple spokeswoman, said that the technology giant’s managers “take copyright infringement complaints very seriously.” However, Wu did not state whether Apple would Appeal the Chinese court’s decision. She did go on to state that “We’re always updating our service to better assist content owners in protecting their rights.”
China has a chronic issue with the use of books, music and software without the proper licensing. The problem has gotten to a stage where the government has promised to put a stop to the situation several times. These claims have yet to be put into action and stop the illegal practices.
The reason Apple was held accountable in the case is because of its agreement with application developers. The company is bound to verify whether the developer has the rights to the material they plan to distribute through the company’s online app store. According to the writers the App Store contained unlicensed copies of their content in 2011.
This is not the first time Apple has to deal with unlicensed work on its App Store in China. Apple had to pay Encyclopedia of China Publishing House $84,000 in November over similar issues. Apple is appealing that decision.
Source: LA Times