Musi Says Evidence Shows Apple Conspired With Music Industry On App Store Ban (arstechnica.com) 16
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Ars Technica: For millions of music fans, the most controversial app ban of the past year was not the brief TikTok outage but the ongoing delisting of Musi from Apple's App Store. Those users are holding out hope that Musi can defeat Apple in court and soon be reinstated. However, rather than coming to any sort of resolution, that court fight has intensified over the past month, with both sides now seeking sanctions, TorrentFreak reported. [...] For Musi, the App Store removal came as an existential threat, prompting a lawsuit after Musi's attempts to work out the dispute with Apple outside of court failed. The music-streaming app has alleged that the Apple ban did not come at YouTube's request but at the request of Apple's apparent music industry friends who allegedly asked Apple to find a way to get the app removed -- prompting Apple to push YouTube to re-open a supposedly resolved complaint.
In a court filing, Apple claimed that this "conspiracy theory," as well as other "baseless" claims, were "false and misleading allegations" warranting sanctions. "Discovery thoroughly disproved Musi's baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit 'friends' in the music industry," Apple argued. But Musi fired back over the weekend, calling (PDF) Apple's motion for sanctions "frivolous" and demanding sanctions be ordered instead against Apple for allegedly abusing the sanctions rule as a "tactic of intimidation and harassment." Musi noted that Apple's requested sanctions against Musi "are not appropriate if there is even 'some credible evidence,'" then included internal emails and references to testimony from Apple's own employees that seemingly met this low bar.
Most likely, this part of the dispute will not be settled until July 30, when a hearing is scheduled on the motions for sanctions. Apple is seemingly hoping that the court will agree that Musi's complaint misrepresents the facts and is so misleading that the complaint must be struck entirely, perhaps cutting out the heart of Musi's argument. However, Musi pointed out that Apple previously sought sanctions and withdrew that fight, allegedly recognizing that its bid for sanctions was "baseless." To convince the court that this second bid is "equally frivolous," Musi shared receipts, attaching internal communications from Apple employees that Apple allegedly worked hard to keep out of the courtroom.
In a court filing, Apple claimed that this "conspiracy theory," as well as other "baseless" claims, were "false and misleading allegations" warranting sanctions. "Discovery thoroughly disproved Musi's baseless conspiracy theory that Apple schemed to eliminate the Musi app from the App Store to benefit 'friends' in the music industry," Apple argued. But Musi fired back over the weekend, calling (PDF) Apple's motion for sanctions "frivolous" and demanding sanctions be ordered instead against Apple for allegedly abusing the sanctions rule as a "tactic of intimidation and harassment." Musi noted that Apple's requested sanctions against Musi "are not appropriate if there is even 'some credible evidence,'" then included internal emails and references to testimony from Apple's own employees that seemingly met this low bar.
Most likely, this part of the dispute will not be settled until July 30, when a hearing is scheduled on the motions for sanctions. Apple is seemingly hoping that the court will agree that Musi's complaint misrepresents the facts and is so misleading that the complaint must be struck entirely, perhaps cutting out the heart of Musi's argument. However, Musi pointed out that Apple previously sought sanctions and withdrew that fight, allegedly recognizing that its bid for sanctions was "baseless." To convince the court that this second bid is "equally frivolous," Musi shared receipts, attaching internal communications from Apple employees that Apple allegedly worked hard to keep out of the courtroom.
Re: (Score:2)
It was mentioned here twice some months ago. It's something that a daily slashdot reader has heard of. (I don't recall what Musi exactly is, but I know I have read about it here.)
* "Google, Apple Drive 'Black Box' IP Policing with App Store Rules" https://apple.slashdot.org/sto... [slashdot.org]
* "Musi Fans Refuse To Update iPhones Until Apple Unblocks Controversial App " https://mobile.slashdot.org/st... [slashdot.org]
Re: Musi ? (Score:2)
Re: Musi ? (Score:2)
small apps would do better to be websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Musi ? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I have finally found the one party that slashdot thinks should be protected from content piracy- Google
If Musi took videos from Nebula, CruncyRoll, CBS, it would still violate intellectual property. Also you do know that people who post on YouTube generate income from those YouTube ads, right? How many of them allowed their videos to be on Musi?
Google sitting over there eating popcorn (Score:3)
Normally you'd assume Google would've lost its shit over a third party app that streamed just audio from YouTube. That has to be against Google's TOS. But I guess Google figured as long as it's just causing headaches regarding Apple's relationships with the music industry, they'd let it slide.
Ironically, Musi was never available for Android. As near as I can tell, being able to stream music from YouTube is one of the paid features that Google offers, so I doubt they'd have been too keen on allowing it on their app store anyway. It really does seem like Google was just keen on watching the drama unfold for their competitor.
Re: Google sitting over there eating popcorn (Score:2)
Google would have never allowed it in the play store in the first place.
"We also don't allow apps that encourage or induce infringement of intellectual property rights"
That would include encouraging users to violate the terms of use of YouTube, which amounts to copyright infringement
Re: (Score:2)
Google can always crush Musi at it's convenience AFTER they're no longer able to be a thorn in Apple's side.
Ego pissing match, shocking (Score:3)
Also, meetings? Intimidation tactics? I've heard of it.
Ugh! Apple (Score:3)
It's not about piracy (Score:2)
I mean yes, it's totally about piracy, but the real issue is who gets to decide what runs on your device. Apple doesn't want us to pirate but why should that impact what we can and cannot do with our own devices?
If Apple won't let us have the apps we want then they need to provide a way for us to install apps without them.
copyright complaints .... (Score:2)