苹果公司在国内再输著作权官司。昨日，北京市二中院就原告磨铁数盟公司及麦家、于卓诉苹果公司侵犯信息网络传播权案件做出一审判决。苹果公司被判赔偿3位原告经济损失及合理支出等共计74.7万元。
原告北京磨铁数盟信息技术有限公司及麦家、于卓起诉称，其享有《明朝那些事儿》系列丛书、《风语》、《风声》、《暗算》、《解密》、《挂职干部》等作品的著作权。被告美国苹果公司未经原告许可，在其经营的应用程序商店app store在线销售并为iphone、ipad用户下载涉案作品，获取经济利益，侵害了原告著作权，给原告带来巨大的经济损失，要求苹果公司停止侵权并赔偿经济损失及合理支出共计425万元。
被告苹果公司则辩称，美国苹果公司是一家经营硬件为主的企业，涉案的应用程序商店app store是由其位于卢森堡的关联企业艾通思公司负责运营和管理，美国苹果公司并未参与涉案应用程序的上传、传播，也并不存在帮助侵权的情况，故不同意原告的诉讼请求。
苹果全资子公司艾通思公司作为本案的第三人出庭，其称应用程序商店向开发商提供信息存储服务，并不知道开发人的侵权行为，故不应当承担侵权责任。
市二中院认为，苹果公司对app store网络服务平台提供下载的应用程序，应负有较高的注意义务。而本案中，被告苹果公司并未尽到其适当的注意义务，具有主观过错，故对于涉案应用程序的侵权，应承担相应的法律责任。
法院认定苹果公司侵权，判决赔偿3原告74.7万元，其中磨铁公司53万元、麦家20.5万元、于卓1.2万元。宣判后，苹果公司方面代理人称要回去跟公司商量后再决定是否要上诉。
据了解，此前已有中国大百科全书出版社有限公司、慕容雪村等8位作家先后因著作权诉苹果，苹果均败诉。
法官释法
苹果为何老输
多起类似案件，苹果公司为何均以败诉收场？昨天，二中院民五庭副庭长冯刚表示，这要搞清两个概念，一是平台运营商的“身份”，二是“避风港”的适用条件。
目前，网络开放平台依内容的来源不同分为“icp”互联网内容提供者和“isp”互联网服务提供者。如果平台运营商实施了提供作品、表演、录音录像制品的行为，使公众可以下载、浏览或者其他方式获得的，那么其“身份”就应认定为icp。如果是提供自动接入、自动传输、信息存储空间、搜索、链接p2p(点对点)等技术服务行为，那么其“身份”应认定为isp。
在这几起案件中，被告苹果公司经营管理应用程序商店app store，为涉案应用程序的开发者上传涉案应用程序，供公众下载提供服务，该行为符合“isp”的身份。
认定为isp，并不意味着直接受“避风港原则”保护。“避风港原则”是指在发生著作权侵权案件时，当isp(网络服务提供商)接到相关投诉后，负有审查、删除的义务，否则视为侵权。如果网络服务提供者“明知”或“应知”网络用户利用网络服务侵害信息网络传播权，未采取删除、屏蔽、断开链接等必要措施，或者提供技术支持等帮助行为的，法院应当认定其构成帮助侵权行为。
苹果作为网络开放平台应用程序商店app store的运营者，对该平台具有很强的控制力和管理能力，其通过该平台对第三方开发商上传的应用程序，加以商业上的筛选和分销，并通过收费下载业务获取了直接经济利益，故对于该平台提供下载的应用程序，应负有较高的注意义务。而苹果公司在可以明显感知涉案应用程序为应用程序开发商未经许可提供的，仍未采取合理措施，存在主观过错，应承担相应的法律责任。
copyrights take a bite out of apple
electronics giant apple inc was ordered to compensate three chinese writers a total in excess of 730,000 yuan ($118,000) for infringing their copyright, beijing no 2 intermediate people's court ruled on tuesday。
however, experts said that copyright infringement on downloading platforms will continue and companies such as apple will not change these services。
the cases were the second batch of lawsuits against apple filed by the writers' right protection union, an organization that safeguards chinese writers' online copyrights. the claim was that the writers' permission was not granted before their books were sold on the company's online app store。
wang guohua, the writers' lawyers, told china daily he was satisfied with the results. he said the compensation was higher than in most copyright infringement cases。
apple's attorney refused to comment on the case。
judge feng gang said apple should take responsibility since, as a big online downloading platform, it has the duty of checking whether books uploaded by third parties are in line with current laws。
"the writers involved this time include mai jia, whose books are often on best-seller lists across the country," he said. "in this way, apple has the capability to know the uploaded books on its online store violated the writer's copyright."
he suggested other technology companies with similar online platforms should learn from apple's case and improve their verification systems to avoid similar disputes。
however, it and copyright experts are pessimistic about the judge's suggestions。
xie wen, former president of yahoo china, said other technology companies will not change the management of their downloading platforms, and such infringements will go on. uploaded information is abundant and complicated, which means companies, no matter big or small, have huge difficulties in distinguishing infringements, he said。
"what they (companies) can do is make it stricter for publishers, but this may affect their online platforms' popularity and result in economic losses," xie said。
yang shuo, a specialist with a decade of experience in cybermanagement, agreed. he said it is impossible for these companies to improve their verification systems with technical solutions。
"the verification must rely on human power, but some small companies won't spend money and time to employ people to do such work," he said. "so such disputes will be hard to avoid in the future."
yu guofu, a lawyer specializing in copyright cases, agreed with the it experts, saying the compensation that apple will pay is much lower than what it had received from downloading and publishers。
"apple, a famous company, was required to compensate three people with only about 700,000 yuan, which will not worry other companies," he said. in addition, victims sometimes only concentrate on big online operators, so "smaller and less-famous online platforms can still get away with their infringements", yu said。
"if the infringement cost becomes high and the punishment for violators becomes harsh, these companies will take their responsibility into consideration, and similar cases will be reduced."