

CBC is forcing me to remove my app from the Mac App Store - kennywinker
http://mobile.davander.com/2011/09/cbc-is-forcing-me-to-remove-my-app-from-the-mac-app-store/

======
ChuckMcM
This rant makes me wonder if this is the author's first dance at the IP party.
If so it could be instructional for them.

The bottom line is that CBC sees you _selling an application_ the _sole
purpose_ of which is to play _their content_ and it competes with _their
application_ which does the same thing. Further they have stated in clear and
bold language that such exploitation is not a right they are willing to share.

That's a pretty straight forward case.

Some folks here are posting 'but doesn't the radio infringe?' and the answer
is no, since they have an agreement with the radio and radio manufacturers.
But if the radio manufacturer created a radio (for example) that let you
listen to CBC broadcasts, and when it detected a commercial it 'blanked out'
that signal and filled in its own commercial. Well that would be pretty
exploitive would it not? If your a content provider you prevent that from
happening by aggressively shutting down anyone who doesn't go through an
approved path. (like a web browser)

The OP isn't doing any of that, he just wants a decent way to listen to these
guys, but from a legal perspective his 'repackaging' is no different than if
it had been for more nefarious reasons, and if they don't shut this guy down
then some bad guy will build their own custom player with some more obviously
exploitive use and point to this guy and say "Unfair, you didn't shut him
down, are you being unreasonable here?"

The correct 'answer' here is that you meet with the business development folks
at CBC and you explain to them your 'problem' (crappy flash player yadda
yadda) and your 'solution' (custom widget) and say to them "What would it take
to have you on board with this?" You could offer them pre-release review
rights for your app, a cut of any revenue from sales, etc etc. Its a twisted
world though, be prepared for people who believe contradictory things at the
same time.

~~~
cube13
There are two other things here that I think are important:

1\. He's charging for the application. That really moves this from a "Big
content bullying little guy" to "straight forward infringement".

2\. As far as I can see, there's nothing that indicates that the application
was not an official CBC app. An uneducated user could have bought the original
version, thinking that it's an official app, and never knew that it was not.

~~~
robgough
From the article the developer admits that in the first instance, he was a bit
silly and shouldn't have used their radio.

But for your first point, he's charging for a product. Something that can pick
up internet radio streams. How is this different from a manufacturer of radio
equipment charging to purchase their device.

It would seem to me that including the ability to listen radio streams other
than those of the CBC would mitigate any legal issues (though I fear he'd have
to start again with a new app submitted to the app store, rather than an
update to thsi one) and pre-load that with his beloved CBC stations as
"suggested content".

------
Pahalial
The story kind of smells. He harps on pitching it as an alternative to their
flash-based player, but what was stopping him from using the same streams he's
repackaged in iTunes (or music player of choice)?

All in all, I don't really approve of his repackaging of our public content
for personal profit. If he'd had to build a service to scrape the flash audio
and then made it accessible via regular streams, that would justify this app's
existence and price, but as it stands I find myself mildly unsympathetic.

~~~
quinndupont
I completely agree with your second point. CBC should surely let people use
their content (legal stuff aside, it's the _right_ thing to do), but letting
parasites make money off of it isn't _right_.

~~~
stickfigure
How is this guy a parasite any more than Opera is for creating a (perhaps
slightly better) player for the myriad free content on the web?

Before, Mac users had a crappy experience listening to the streams.
Afterwards, it was presumably better. He's adding value to the ecosystem - not
a lot, maybe a couple dollars' worth... unsurprisingly, this is what he
charges.

------
GiraffeNecktie
The moral of the story: if you willfully appropriate someone's trademark and
intellectual property their lawyers will settle for nothing less than complete
surrender. Get over it and move on.

~~~
ynniv
What's wrong with you people? Dude made an MP3 player... If the CBC was
concerned, they wouldn't have an unencrypted MP3 stream.

EDIT: Since when is HN frequented by people who dislike entrepreneurs, let
alone an open web? Why are we not filing injunctions against all web browsers?
iTunes? WinAmp? curl?

~~~
jarek
> Dude made an MP3 player...

A U2-branded MP3 player that only plays U2 music...

~~~
ynniv
It only streams content from a public stream. It is no different from iTunes,
WinAmp, RealPlayer, or a web browser. The fact that it only streams one URL
makes it less suitable to the user, but legally no different than the other
players.

~~~
jarek
Legally, intent matters.

~~~
ynniv
His intent was to provide a better experience to people listening to a public
stream. People can already listen to it, he is making it easier and better.

I know the joke about the guy getting upset that Someone is Wrong on the
Internet, but this thread makes me want create a new private Internet where
people need to show cognitive ability before opening their mouth.

~~~
jarek
Hey, if you can create a new private real world where everything makes sense
according to a technocratic viewpoint while you're at it, I'd sign up. Until
then, we live in a world where internet streaming is legally different from
radio broadcasting, and unless you're looking to go the ads-on-torrent-site
route, if you're planning to sell things it might be worth taking that into
account.

------
pilom
From the CBC terms of use: "ANY USE, REPRODUCTION, ALTERATION, MODIFICATION,
PUBLIC PERFORMANCE OR DISPLAY, UPLOADING OR POSTING ONTO THE INTERNET,
TRANSMISSION, REDISTRIBUTION OR OTHER EXPLOITATION OF THE WEBSITE OR OF ANY
CONTENT, WHETHER IN WHOLE OR IN PART, OTHER THAN EXPRESSLY SET OUT HEREIN, IS
PROHIBITED WITHOUT THE EXPRESS WRITTEN PERMISSION OF CBC/Radio Canada."

-[http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/termsofuse.html#ownershi...](http://www.cbc.ca/aboutcbc/discover/termsofuse.html#ownership)

~~~
mbreese
Does it say anything about what web browsers you can use to access the site?

~~~
alsocasey
Exactly... I can already access any of these streams through URLs they
themselves publish. How is this app any different than packaging a prettily
wrapped webkit with bookmarks for these streams on its default homepage?
Wouldn't the fact that these URLs exist invalidate any claims CBC may have
with respect to transmission/streaming? What should be doen when the corporate
entity itself facilitates infringement on its own terms?

~~~
DrJokepu
Actually, even a "prettily wrapped webkit with bookmarks for these streams on
its default homepage" itself would be bordering unauthorised exploitation of
their content, especially if you charged for it. This might sound weird at
first but keep in mind that just because two things are technically very
similar it doesn't mean that they are legally similar.

~~~
randomdata
I remember back in the day when web browsers actually cost money, my ISP would
sell you Netscape preconfigured to use their website as the browser's
homepage. Being a Canadian ISP, they provided helpful links to the CBC website
on their default homepage.

From a legal standpoint, how is that any different at all? Would you say that
my ISP was also exploiting CBC's content at the time?

~~~
jarek
No, they were charging you for the browser. If they sold you a browser that
could only view CBC content, CBC might have had beef. (Though remember that
back then a lot of legal standards that have now been created didn't exist.)
If they sold you a browser with homepage set to CBC by default and extensively
marketed that product based on the CBC homepage, CBC might have had beef. If
they iframed CBC on their own homepage, CBC might have had beef.

Despite some providers' (including CBC's) fanciful claims to the contrary, I
don't think or recall any court decision giving control over incoming links to
parties being linked to. (Compare to decisions, however controversial,
regarding outgoing links, .torrent links being the classic case.)

~~~
randomdata
The original version was marketed under the CBC brand. While that looked like
a pretty clear cut violation, the author has gone to lengths to remove those
references.

Now the product is just a web browser whose home page provides hyperlinks to
the CBC website, just like my ISP did back in the day. When you buy the app,
you are buying the web browser, not the CBC content. The CBC content is only
accessible via hyperlinks which you, the user, have to specifically activate.

I get where you are coming from, but it is not clear where the line is drawn.
If I create a web browser with a built-in search field that forwards the
browser to Google, like many browsers do these days, am I liable to Google in
the same way? What if I create an HTML form with a search field that points
towards Google? What if I move the HTML form URL into an <a> tag?

------
Fizzer
This rant would make sense to me if the app was free, but if you're making
profit just by repackaging CBC's content they have every right to ask you to
stop.

~~~
michaeldhopkins
He is not packaging it, though. As he says in the article, his app is
basically a simple web browser that automates the process of going to the
CBC's website and clicking on a stream URL. He does not distribute the content
himself.

Also, it is true the CBC has a right to ask him to stop and that Apple has a
right to remove the app at their discretion, but it is not necessarily true
that CBC has a legal right to force him to stop. If the app is legal, Apple's
policy of removing illegal content is being misapplied to this app.

Edit: Since I received a downvote from a petulant person I will try to explain
further. As the writer of this piece explains, his app is basically a paid web
browser that only works on part of one site. There is nothing wrong with
writing a web browser, charging for a web browser and optimizing it for CBC
content.

~~~
TheCapn
The reason you've been downvoted (not by me though, I'm not popular enough
yet) is because your assertation is wrong. In your very first line you state
that he is not packaging the CBC content when in all literal meanings of the
word Packaging he is. He has written a wrapper for the content that allows him
to provide the interface free from CBC's control and is profiting from it.

Now due to CBC's disclaimer on the content they have the right to refuse
people from repackaging their content as it abstracts the source of the data.
Should the owner (OP) misuse this content in some way there is a chance that
CBC become liable. CBC would not sue Mozilla for providing access to the
stream within their browser because the stream is not repackaged with non-CBC
logos or misrepresentation of their logo. I would wager however that they
would pursue a website that embeds the stream and collects revenue from it.

Arguably CBC wouldn't care if he gave it away but since his application would
not exist without the CBC Radio content they have a decent grounds for suit
against him. The author plays the pity card by trying to sell us the idea he
did it for convenience but in reality he aimed to profit from the app. We know
this because of his refusal to stop and use his tool privately and his strong
attempt to continue profiting from the app dispite legal tension.

The long story short is that the author _may_ have grounds to stand on legally
if he got a good enough lawyer to spin his version of the truth but as things
stand right now CBC is looking to defend itself legally against any potential
liability resulting from 3rd parties profiting from their service.

~~~
michaeldhopkins
Downvotes are not for disagreeing with people on Hacker News. I disagree with
your post but I upvoted it.

There is a legal difference between distributing someone's content oneself and
linking to it. However, I will grant you that CBC's ToS says:

"CBC/Radio Canada reserves the right to prohibit or refuse to accept any link
to the Web site...You agree to remove any link you may have to the Web site
upon the request of CBC/Radio Canada."

Of course, that is not the allegation being made. The question is when a web
browser crosses from "neutral tool to serve web content legally" to
"proprietary tool that serves web content illegally." The for-profit nature of
the app has nothing to do with it because there is nothing illegal about
charging money for a web browser even though it's not done. The issue is how
incompletely the intended web experience is rendered before it is
infringement, and I do not believe that stripping out everything from a
webpage but the links is infringement so long as the content is legal and the
trademark is not being violated.

~~~
tshtf
_I think it's ok to use the up and down arrows to express agreement. Obviously
the uparrows aren't only for applauding politeness, so it seems reasonable
that the downarrows aren't only for booing rudeness._

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=117171>

~~~
michaeldhopkins
I am quite surprised to see that. I suppose upvoting makes sense to reward
karma, but the purpose of downvoting is to make a comment difficult to even
read. It seems against the spirit of the site to do that to somethig one
merely disagrees with.

------
starnix17
What about a paid app that's classified as simply an Internet radio player
that has a huge directory of stations (similar to iTunes)?

Would that be subject to similar legal issues?

I may or may not have just released one :-).

Edit for more insight: Here's my app - <http://endlesswhileloop.com/apps/dial>

Some others... Snowtape - <http://vemedio.com/products/snowtape_phone> Radium
- <http://www.catpigstudios.com/>

Both of these are great apps with their own built-in Internet radio directory
that I assume they built on their own with or without stations' permissions.

------
testcock1
"The stream URLs can be accessed with any web browser, the streams can be
played by any media player. If my app is infringing, so are iTunes, Windows
Media Player, Safari, Internet Explorer, and Firefox. So is your car radio,
for that matter."

None of those are charging for the access. And I think that is the only reason
for CBC's aggressive approach.

~~~
IanDrake
Not to beat this to death, but the developer created software. You're paying
for the software, not the content.

It's like a paid browser (<http://www.icab.de/index.html>), the web content is
free, but the software ads value somehow and costs money.

I hope someone can stand up to this kind of bulling and get this issue in
court and decided on.

~~~
cube13
>Not to beat this to death, but the developer created software. You're paying
for the software, not the content.

The software only allows access to CBC content. I don't see any way of adding
additional streams to the list. That's what they're objecting to, probably.

------
steve8918
It looks like he raised the ire of the CBC because he used the CBC logo to
promote an app he was selling for profit, and now they won't stop until it's
completely eradicated. Big mistake to steal someone's trademark, but it's a
life lesson.

What he should do is completely remove the app, to satisfy CBC and Apple. In a
couple of months, simply create a new app that does the same thing with no
reference to Canada or CBC or anything. In the description, mention it will
play X, Y, and Z, and on the web page, mention you can play CBC streams by
pointing to the URL.

This seems legit to me.

------
joshaidan
Hard to say who's side I'm on, but I can't help but think of those spam apps
you see all over the Internet that charge you a small or large sum of money
for something you can get for free on the net (i.e. watch all the free movies
you want for $10, which in turn they sell you a repackaged version of uTorrent
with links to Pirates Bay). In a way, the CBC is protecting the free
availability of their service; it's like they're protecting themselves and
their brand from people who want to profit off of it.

------
noonespecial
It's different than a physical radio because a physical radio can get more
than just one station. Think about how far you'd get making a radio that got
just one station and marketing it as the "Z107" radio or the "ABC" radio.

The CBC is right. They're embarrasing themselves but they're right. Just
because they have the right to take their ball and go home doesn't mean
they'll make many friends in the neighborhood doing so.

~~~
dchest
1\. My old Soviet wired radio could only "receive" one station.

2\. On the screenshot you can see four stations, not one. They are from a
single broadcaster, but they are different "stations" (URLs).

3\. How does the number of stations make any difference?

~~~
jarek
I'm not convinced the Soviet datapoint is useful here, considering that both
of the important issues here (charging for a device/app that accesses content
owned by another entity and use of that entity's trade marks) would have been
vastly different in the USSR system, where both the device manufacturer and
the broadcaster were part of the state.

------
alwold
It seems like it might make sense to re-brand the app as a generic stream
player. Then you could provide some sort of directory service to look up
available streams where you provide access to CBC, along with other streams
from other providers. The directory could even be made into a community
feature where users can add new stream URLs.

------
naner
_About six months ago I made a Mac app to play their radio streams, so that I
wouldn’t have to use the web player on my Mac. I recently polished it up a
bit, and began selling it in the Mac App Store._

I'm going to sidestep all the obvious stuff that is wrong with this ridiculous
blog post and just say that it is unethical to sell an app which taps into
someone else's content in a nonstandard way that you have no control over. Any
time the people controlling the content make the slightest change they could
break your app. And your customers are left with a lighter wallet and a
suddenly non-functioning app.

If you're going to write a program that accesses someone else's services in an
unsupported way, really the only thing you can do is give it away.

------
ynniv
This foreshadows how Apple's model will devolve. I have been a Mac fanboy for
a long time, and have always said that Apple wouldn't turn into Microsoft if
they became popular. The good news is that it appears they won't; we don't see
Apple promoting their inferior products with the goal of locking people in to
their platform. What we see instead is Apple ardently defending Intellectual
Property rights, even when there does not appear to be infringement. Only the
clear establishment will be allowed in their channel, and only their channel
will be allowed on their hardware.

This is more avoidable than file formats: one can easily switch to another
operating system without repercussion. Unfortunately, there aren't many good
alternatives.

------
shinratdr
I was in agreement with the guy, right up until he mentioned he was charging
for it. You can do this as a labour of love or a free open source project, but
once you start charging for it you're profiting off the work of others.

It's not CBC's mandate to allow their name & content to be used without
permission for the profit of a 3rd party. In fact, it's directly against their
best interests to allow this.

There are clearly ways to do this properly. Last time I checked Radium for OS
X and TuneIn Radio for iOS and Android are still for sale and doing fine,
despite offering a desktop or mobile player for all of CBC's streams AND
charging for it.

------
anigbrowl
I'm guessing there's a reason we're only seeing the last part of the email
exchange: [http://mobile.davander.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/threat...](http://mobile.davander.com/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/threatletter2.pdf)

Also, Cory doesn't seem very familiar with the concept of Crown Copyright.
State-produced/owned documents are not automatically public domain in Canada
as they are in the US; the government retains copyright and licenses such
material at its pleasure. Licenses are often available for the asking, but
there is no implied license.

------
yock
What if the developer repackaged the app without the URLs for CBC included? If
the user had to put the stream URLs into the app himself, would that placate
the technically-challanged CBC?

~~~
windsurfer
Yes. That is the only legal way of using this content. The CBC forbids
packaging any content from their site... which includes URLs.

~~~
rhizome
That's the kind of logic that would prevent Google Maps from displaying house
addresses, which it does do.

~~~
jarek
Doesn't Google own or license the information on house addresses?

------
AlexBlom
Right or wrong, this has to be due to the repackaging of content and charging
for it. Perhaps the response would be different if the app was free?

Excluding radios (which don't repackage in the same way, but I understand the
authors point) are there any precedents supporting the repackaging of public
content?

~~~
jrockway
A good example is all those Wikipedia and Stack Overflow content-suckers.
Perfectly legal.

All this application is is a nice interface to "curl <http://radio-
stream.whatever/> > /dev/dsp". If this application is illegal, so is anything
capable of speaking HTTP.

~~~
pilom
I was under the impression that SO "could" for instance copyright all user
submitted content. In that case the republication of that content without the
permission of the copyright holder would be illegal.

~~~
sp332
You own the copyright on everything you write. The site can only claim
copyright if you transfer it to them during the comment submission process.

~~~
PotatoEngineer
And many sites specifically state that you're signing over the copyright as
part of posting.

------
webrakadabra
I pay for my good old Philips radio and philips benefits from the sale. CBC
can not demand Philips to not sell radios.

I pay for my smartphone, which has software to listen to radio and Apple,
Samsung or someone benefits from the sale. CBC doesn't demand them to exclude
CBC.

Now if I choose to pay for another software and the developer benefits from
it, what interest does CBC have here that they they don't have in previous
situations ?

The matter of the fact is that Hardware/Software is different from Content.
Period. Hardware/Software facilitates content. While the CBC radio content
itself is free, the Hardware/Software can sell and for a profit.

------
killerswan
This is the organization which thinks hyperlinks from other websites can be a
copyright and/or terms of use violation, too. Right?

------
pilom
Lets say a company really did want to say "only paying customers can listen to
my stream." Technologically, how do you create a stream that has a URL for
compatibility with current players but limits who it plays for?

~~~
mattparcher
Make the audio unlistenable unless you pay for special headphones/audio
adapter?

</sarcasm>

------
nirvana
First off, thank you for correctly attributing the issue to CBC, rather than
saying that Apple is forcing you. (too many of these articles act like it is
Apple's doing.)

Secondly, I think that they may not actually be forcing you. I suspect that if
you just kept selling it, you might never hear from them again. If you do hear
from them again, it won't be a summons for a lawsuit. I think you're at step 2
of about 30 steps before they file.

Before they file, they have to make sure that they have a case that is worth
filing. The fact that you already complied with the tidemark and copyright
issues, and that you're just enabling reception of content they are freely
distributing makes the chance of the court case being a total farce very high.

While any court case, even a farce, may be more expensive than you want to
bear, there is nothing to stop you from immediately removing the app from the
store the moment they actually file.

But the likelihood of them having farce of a court case probably means they
won't file. It would be in the news, and the news would not be sympathetic to
CBC (at least if this were america...)

Personally, if I were in your shoes, that's what I'd do... wait until they
indicate they are serious. Sending letters is meaningless, and all letters
from lawyers sound threatening to non-lawyers. I'm not a lawyer and this isn't
legal advice.

I did have a situation like that where someone claimed I was infringing, I
thought it would be a farce, I simply ignored them, and they never sued. If
they had sued, it would have been a media circus and I was almost hoping for
that.

~~~
HeyLaughingBoy
_While any court case, even a farce, may be more expensive than you want to
bear, there is nothing to stop you from immediately removing the app from the
store the moment they actually file._

What would that accomplish? He would still have in hand a summons to court and
a lawsuit filed against him and whatever damages they felt were owed. Assuming
they are unwilling to settle, now he has to go to court to defend himself, or
risk getting a summary judgement against him.

You can ignore (as a calculated risk) letters claiming you're infringing.
Ignoring an actual notice that a suit has been filed against you is another
thing altogether.

[edit] OK, at the time of filing, he won't have a summons, but he still has to
Answer the Complaints filed.

~~~
nirvana
Right, in fact, I'm suggesting that he not ignore a notice of a suit, and
instead remove the app from the store. There may be a case for stopping him
from continuing to sell the app, and by removing it, he eliminates that case.
The case for "damages" done by selling the app up until the date of the
lawsuit is a different case, and I believe a more difficult case to make than
the "he's using our trademarks" case.

Since anyone can get these same broadcasts via the internet, that he is
letting people get, via the internet, it is kinda hard to say he's damaged
CBC's ability to distribute the broadcasts, via the internet, which they
distribute for free. He can't have cut into any of their sales... so the claim
that he's damaged them in some way becomes kinda tenuous.

