[simondotau]

1. Irrelevant. You’re not receiving unlimited distribution rights with that particular purchase.

2. The directive gives end users the right to reverse engineer, modify, and make PRIVATE copies of intellectual property for the purposes of interoperability. It doesn’t create a new avenue for the redistribution of intellectual property.

[dns_snek]

I get it, so they get to make up new fees that previously didn't exist and claim they're a reasonable way to comply. If they get accused of not having enough toilets at the office, they can simply build one and charge $10000 per use to "cover operating expenses", brilliant! That's what this is.

Can you imagine if AMD or Intel tried to charge a fee to every program written using their instruction set? How about your web browser or keyboard manufacturer wanting a cut of your revenue? Is that ridiculous enough yet? Apple derives almost the entirety of their value from their app ecosystem, so don't act like giving developers access to development tools used to be charity before this new fee came along. Conveniently it only affects one side of this monopolistic fence, too.

Above all, there's nothing being distributed, the tools and SDKs certainly aren't, and APIs aren't protected IP, courts have already settled that.

[simondotau]

These aren't new fees, it's an opt-in alternative pricing structure. For people who sell apps for money it is an attractive deal. (Which is a critical point. It's the people who sell apps who had the most to complain about. People who give apps away for free had little to complain about and don't have to do anything.)

Your third paragraph is technically incorrect. Even the simplest iOS binary includes fragments of statically linked Apple intellectual property. Software piracy is software piracy, no matter how simple the app.

[dns_snek]

> People who give apps away for free had little to complain about and don't have to do anything.

Pray tell, when can I publish my porn app on iOS for free?

Apple doesn't want it in their stores, which is fair, but I heard there was this piece of regulation coming around that gave us the right to sideload, and the right to use alternative browsers!

At this point I just look forward to the day they get hit with the spicy fines of percentage annual revenue. If you think that having to pay a fee to exercise your lawful rights will be allowed to stand, I have bad news.

> Software piracy is software piracy, no matter how simple the app.

The law also considers fair use, which is allowed infringement. Additionally, EU courts have ruled that "functional" parts of computer programs aren't protected at all.

[simondotau]

> when can I publish my porn app

Apple’s new rules now allow an avenue for porn apps, and those rules are actually great for paid apps. Hopefully you’re not talking about free porn? You want to women to take their clothes off and you won't even pay them for it?

> the right to use alternative browsers

You have the right to use whatever browser you want, just buy a device which supports that browser. Meanwhile, you're being embarrassingly short-sighted. Browser diversity is infinitely more important than browser choice. Apple is the only significant entity forcing browser diversity upon the web ecosystem.

> If you think that having to pay a fee to exercise your lawful rights

You do that every time you consume the goods and services provided by corporations. You have a lawful right to watch Netflix, but that right doesn't absolve you from paying for your subscription. You have no lawful right to decide how Apple monetises their intellectual property. And the EU has no right to give Apple's intellectual property away.

If you demand that governments force Apple to rearrange their deal, don't complain when they rearrange it.

> The law also considers fair use

Just using someone else's intellectual property because you think you're entitled to isn't fair use. This is the third reply in a row where you've repeatedly demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of law.

> EU courts have ruled that "functional" parts of computer programs aren't protected at all

Wow, there you go again. No they didn't. That ruling did not walk back copyright in any way. The ruling upheld the self-evident truth that functionality isn't protected by copyright. The example they cite is code which parses a specific file format. You can't declare the idea of a specific file format structure as intellectual property, and you can't stop someone from writing their own code to parse it. But that doesn't give them a right to use your code without permission.