[David Braue]

Apple has been named as defendant in a lawsuit from one band against an artist far more successful than they are. Theory is, Apple is liable because it distributed Daughtry's song.

What do you think? Does this sound a bit rich? Can Apple try the 'Napster' defence -- eg "we're just a conduit for the content and not its police"? Or does Apple have a legal obligation to ensure the integrity of the music sells?

And, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment -- why does it claim the right/obligation to vet and ban applications sold through the App Store? Is this something of a double-standard?

[thomasina]

What do you think? Does this sound a bit rich? Can Apple try the 'Napster' defence -- eg "we're just a conduit for the content and not its police"? Or does Apple have a legal obligation to ensure the integrity of the music sells?

And, if I can play devil's advocate for a moment -- why does it claim the right/obligation to vet and ban applications sold through the App Store? Is this something of a double-standard?

Apple did not publish the song, they were a distributor. I would have thought liability rests with the publisher (the artist and/or label). So yes, it seems a bit rich. And if Apple were to have to check every new song for all possibilities of plagiarism we'd never have any music on the Store at all. Same as if Amazon.com were expected to read every book for all possibilities of plagiarism. Totally impractical.

Vetting and banning applications is a different thing altogether. Music, in the end, comes in the form of a passive file. You get it, you play it. If the song's a rip-off or badly performed you just delete it and chalk it up to experience.

An app on the other hand involves code that interacts with an Apple device. So yes, I absolutely would expect and want them to be vetting apps. Don't want to innocently download something and then find that its dodgy code has ruined things for me. I guess you could say that vetting apps is in large part about technical standards, whereas vetting music (if it were done) would be about (often nebulous or contentious) artistic matters.

[Some Random Bloke]

Napster encouraged piracy by it's very design. Apple has demonstrated a willingness to safeguard musicians rights (DRM) - completely different things.

[thomasina]

It would be argued that plagiarism (stealing others' ideas to create your own work) is a different kettle of fish from piracy (stealing/unauthorised distribution of the final product). My guess is there will be a moral argument along the lines of Apple "endorsing" plagiarism by distributing the song. But I don't think it will wash.

[Brooksey]

It is interesting that while they have targeted Apple, they haven't also gone after all the many music stores that sold the song the old fashioned way - via LP record, cassette tape or that new fangled Compact Disc.

Does that suggest that iTunes has made these places redundant, or is it that Apple is a soft target, or it is just too hard to include even the biggest music retailers in such a lawsuit?

[mickdevlin]

Does that suggest that iTunes has made these places redundant, or is it that Apple is a soft target, or it is just too hard to include even the biggest music retailers in such a lawsuit?

It does suggest that. It looks like the lawyers of the group who are suing are either lazy, greedy or both.

[David Holloway]

It does suggest that. It looks like the lawyers of the group who are suing are either lazy, greedy or both.

Doesn't that cover all lawyers

[pmoeser]

apple are the soft target.
I'd love to see a counter claim when they lose the case against apple.
Use the cash to lower the price of the iPods!

[subs team]

There's always some loon trying to say I wrote that song first, it happens all the time and they try to sue anybody involved, usually thrown out of court. Anyone remember the Melbourne song writer that kept suing Melissa Etheridge? She tried a couple of times and the songs didn't even sound alike.