App Store takedowns over copyright complaints are problematic

As controller of the App Store, Apple has a duty to keep the digital marketplace filled with engaging apps that don’t break laws. However, the amount of control Apple has over apps and its ability to easily reject apps over copyright infringement complaints has angered some developers.

For TV Time and Musi, Apple is apparently too eager to brandish the banhammer.

On November 1, TV Time revealed on X that it was aware its app no ​​longer appeared on the App Store. At the time, he added that he was working with Apple to bring it back to stores.

In a follow-up on Wednesday, TechCrunch intervened and Apple reinstated the App Store listing for TV Time. It turned out that the app was taken down for copyright infringement, but not deliberately.

TV Time allows users to track their TV viewing, including sending them to streaming apps to watch their desired content. However, the app also allowed users to post images and animated GIFs from their favorite shows in built-in communities.

Jerry Inman, chief marketing officer of Whip Media, which owns TV Time, said this was due to a mishandled intellectual property complaint, which the app routinely handles. After users uploaded TV and movie covers to the app, a company then claimed copyright infringement and posted a notice under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.

The app responded by asking for proof of ownership, which was not provided, but it removed the images anyway. The plaintiff company also demanded a financial settlement, which is not in compliance with the DMCA, and Whip Media refused to pay it.

The complainant then informed Apple that the claim was “unresolved,” Inman said, which then led Apple to remove the app.

Although Whip Media and the plaintiff company have since resolved the issue, there are still concerns that Apple has too much control.

“Apple holds significant power over app developers by controlling access to a massive market and, in this case, appears to have acted on a complaint without requiring solid evidence from the complainant,” Inman said.

In September, Musi was removed from the App Store, amid another copyright complaint.

A music streaming app, Musi did not directly stream music from its own servers, but instead relied on YouTube. Users would receive music hosted on YouTube servers, which meant Musi could avoid paying for song licenses.

Following several complaints, including some from YouTube itself, the application was removed from the App Store.

Tuesday, Ars Technica reported that Musi users wanted to keep the app. If the app was unloaded during an update or the user got a new phone, they wouldn’t be able to redownload the app again.

Some users found that the app was unloaded after an update, with no option to download it again. Others have since decided to avoid updating their devices so they can keep their app.

To complicate matters, Musi sued Apple in October to try to force it to reinstate the app in the App Store. The intention was to keep the application active while copyright complaints were handled by the developer.

Musi believes Apple acted inappropriately, breaking its contract by removing the app before investigating YouTube’s allegations.

However, the legal action could mean Musi will be in courtroom limbo for some time. A hearing on an injunction to reinstate Musi won’t take place until at least January, and that could result in an even greater delay before he is reinstated, if the court agrees.

Although it is delayed, Musi is concerned about losing revenue by not being able to download. In a filing opposing the injunction on Friday, Apple says fans who have the app installed are still able to stream and use the service, so the lack of a listing won’t kill the app entirely .

Apple is also concerned that granting the injunction could make Apple more liable for copyright violations. He stresses that, while trying to remain neutral and not take sides, Apple should not be expected to use resources to investigate every copyright notice it receives.

“The public interest in preserving intellectual property rights weighs heavily against the injunction sought here,” the opposition filing states, “which would force Apple to distribute an application despite the repeated and consistent objections of third parties who claim that their rights are violated by the application.

As a very large company operating one of the largest digital storefronts in the world, Apple is under a lot of pressure. This naturally becomes a big target when there is a complaint that someone feels they should resolve on their behalf.

Part of the problem is the large number of complaints received about App Store content. The company has to deal with thousands of complaints and requests about App Store apps produced by third parties rather than its internal team.

To be able to thoroughly investigate each complaint to determine whether it is valid or not, Apple would have to use up a lot of its resources. For a task that it has no interest in expending effort on, an investigation is not worth the company’s time unless it faces a serious financial threat.

This is why you see so many references in the App Store review guidelines that an app can be removed from the App Store for a variety of reasons. In these cases in particular, this would fall under point 5.2, Intellectual Property, which aims for applications to obtain licenses for the content they use.

Apple is not obligated to remove apps, but faced with the prospect of legal action from a copyright holder, it is much easier for Apple to eject them just in case.

It is plausible that Apple makes as little effort as possible when it comes to complaints. He could have contacted the developers at TV Time to ask about the complaint before simply ejecting, but that’s not the case.

In many cases, it’s probably justifiable for Apple to boot the app, especially in extremely obvious cases of copyright infringement. But sometimes it’s worth Apple taking a moment to do a cursory check before pulling the app.