Apple boss Tim Cook in massive pay cut

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20854669

And...

Apple fined by China court for copyright violation

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20856199

Pot, is that you?

Black kettle!

The copyright thing is interesting actually

'They had claimed that unlicensed electronic versions of their books had been sold on Apple's online store.'

Apple don't claim anything on the store is copyright to them (other than works they obviously wrote themselves), any more than a branch of Waterstones claims copyright over any of the books inside it's walls. However, his is exactly how the Chinese court has treated it - that because they were the seller of the works they breached copyright - not the people who illegally uploaded the works to the store, claimed copyright over it, sold it and and took the profit made from doing so.
There is an agreement you must sign before you can upload works to the Apple book store. That agreement includes a clause saying all works you upload must be your own copyright, or you must have a licence to distribute digital copies if they aren't. The story makes no reference to whether those people have also been prosecuted.

We've seen before that different rules apply on-line. iTunes in this case is acting little different from Rapidshare.

Plus, I'm pretty sure that Waterstones would be in trouble if they were selling counterfeit copies even if they claimed not to know.

Nope. The Berne convention rules apply identically online to any other way of moving, displaying, broadcasting or copying copyrighted works. They apparently apply differently in different countries courts, but that's whole other thing.


Really? When did Rapidshare start redistributing 70% of it's income to the people who actually own the copyright on the stuff downloaded from there? And when did they require legally binding documentation of licence to do so before things are uploaded? I must have missed those changes.


Actually most likely not. If they could show no 'intent to deceive' and that they proceeded in good faith they would have the counterfeit goods confiscated but they most likely wouldn't be prosecuted, because the police/CPS generally don't like to waste their own time. You can't just get away with saying 'well, we didn't ask', but you can get away with saying 'We asked, they gave us this document, it looked legit'.

The argument in the Apple case in an EU court would pretty much come down to A) did Apple know the uploads were copyright? B) Did they ask the people uploading them if they had the right to sell them? and C) Did they sufficiently check any such assurances they were given?

The bald fact is copyright 'works differently' in China, despite the rules supposedly being the same. This is just a fact of doing business over there. If you don't like it, don't deal with/in China, it's that simple.

Actually, he took a $500,000 pay rise!

The "cut" was that he got a one-off set of share options for taking on the role of CEO.