Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App

[Arndroid]

Obviously you failed to read...

If the blogger has legitimately been granted explicit limited license to reproduce said content on their own server, then they are doing nothing wrong.

That limited license may not transfer to Apple who has just decided as a 3rd party to illegally violate copyright laws and reproduce said content through their own private distribution system without anyone's explicit consent.

Providing a RSS feed of your own content hosted on your own service / server for others to read, does not make the content public domain.

Others cannot legally come along and repackage your content into their own service without your explicit consent.

Apple is violating copyright laws. And they will get called on it.

Have a little read over the various pages on this site:

http://www.feedforall.com/rss2html....owledgebase-template.htm&GUID=a310&MAXITEMS=1

Several of the links on the left side navigation bar on that page discuss aspects of the issue as well.

RSS does not make content public domain. You may not like to believe it. But it is still protected by copyright laws.

If you have a license to content on your own site you don't have a license to rebroadcast it to the world via RSS. This is not complicated. RSS is not part of your self contained site. If you knew what RSS was you would understand this to be impossible.

Apple is no less legally qualified to reprint published RSS feeds than anyone else. That is what you don't get.

It is really mind boggling people have no idea what RSS is.

Here is the basic and inalienable RSS contract:

Publisher: I agree to organize selected content from my site into an RSS feed so literally anyone can access it with any sort of mechanism that converts RSS feeds to a readable format.

Rest of World: we agree to accept your RSS feeds and read them or provide them for others to read. We agree not to edit or alter the content of the actual RSS feed itself.

That is the entirety of the contract. Publisher submits it to the WORLD, world agrees not to molest the actual data stream in reproduction. There is nothing else to it.

If a publisher is unable to accept these terms that have been in existence since RSS feeds came into being they can simply turn off RSS feeds on their website. It is very simple. The legal issue only applies to website publishers who are pushing the works of others to the world via RSS whom they do not have the rights to do so.

There are no special caveats or conditions. If publishers want that they are going to have to invent something other than RSS.

 

[asimpletune]

Apple recently sent a mass email to news publishers to introduce them to Apple News, an upcoming Flipboard-inspired app for iOS 9 that will deliver curated news and magazine stories with custom layouts, photo galleries, videos and animations optimized for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

The email has ignited some controversy in the news and blogging community over the past week, according to the BBC, which reports that some writers are disappointed about Apple's decision to automatically include a website's RSS feeds in Apple News unless they specifically opt out by replying to the email.Some bloggers argue that not all publishers are guaranteed to see the email, which could easily be overlooked or buried in a spam inbox, leading to their content being featured on Apple News without their knowledge or explicit consent. Apple also has permission to place advertising next to or near a publisher's content without providing any compensation, and will pass on any legal fees to publishers.Apple News is highlighted as one of the main features on the iOS 9 preview page, so it is no surprise that Apple is attempting to have as much content available on the platform at launch as possible. It is clear, however, that many publishers would have appreciated the terms of Apple News being set on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. Apple so far has not commented on those concerns.

Article Link: Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App

Ok, to set the record straight, this is how RSS works. There's nothing odd about this. If you read the original blog post that MR is quoting, the OP even says that what RSS is for.

Before everybody gets their panties in a bunch, let's just think for a second and let ourselves get too sensationalized. This is what RSS does, like fundamentally. MR was reporting that publishers are upset. Ok, big deal. That doesn't mean that aggregating content into an app is wrong.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Google News is hailed when they stand up to content publishers and delist them when they do not follow Googles strict rules to monetize their public content.

Why is Apple News being criticized???

 

[Rigby]

If you have a license to content on your own site you don't have a license to rebroadcast it to the world via RSS. This is not complicated. RSS is not part of your self contained site. If you knew what RSS was you would understand this to be impossible.

You keep writing over and over that other people don't know what RSS is. The problem is that you are the one who doesn't understand it. RSS is just a technical standard to package content in a different format. Whether you use RSS, HTML or stone tablets to publish your content doesn't have anything to do with the legal status of the content.

Here is the basic and inalienable RSS contract:

Oh my.

 

[Rogifan]

Just because a blogger didn't come to specifically tell you about it on macrumors.com forum, doesn't mean you can ignore it. I think once bloggers figure out that their content is being used and they are no longer getting clicks, etc, they will get very angry very fast.

Also, why are you trolling? Why not just comment, why do you have to immediately attack me instead of the comment I made? Says a lot about you... take a breather, this isn't the end of the world. Also, please schedule something with a therapist. I can't imagine how you treat others outside the internet. Do you beat your wife, kids?

Just don't get angry, plain and simple.

My comment wasn't directed at you so I don't know what you're going on about.

 

[Arndroid]

Obviously you failed to read...

If the blogger has legitimately been granted explicit limited license to reproduce said content on their own server, then they are doing nothing wrong.

That limited license may not transfer to Apple who has just decided as a 3rd party to illegally violate copyright laws and reproduce said content through their own private distribution system without anyone's explicit consent.

Providing a RSS feed of your own content hosted on your own service / server for others to read, does not make the content public domain.

Others cannot legally come along and repackage your content into their own service without your explicit consent.

Apple is violating copyright laws. And they will get called on it.

Have a little read over the various pages on this site:

http://www.feedforall.com/rss2html....owledgebase-template.htm&GUID=a310&MAXITEMS=1

Several of the links on the left side navigation bar on that page discuss aspects of the issue as well.

RSS does not make content public domain. You may not like to believe it. But it is still protected by copyright laws.

You just don't get it. If a web publisher publishes someone else's content via their RSS FEED when they only have licensed it for their website they are the ones legally liable. Not those sites properly using RSS feeds to disimineste news.

You keep wanting to act like apple is doing something wrong all the while not understanding RSS feeds. The first S IN RSS stands for syndicate which means to rebroadcast. It is up to the website to secure the properly licensing to syndicate someone else's content not the people who are properly using RSS to display information as intended.

 

[fonso]

I'm sending Apple an e-mail telling them I'm now selling copies of their free published software, unless they tell me I can't and opt-out, because ya know... It's public anyway.

Great logic!

That's a terrible analogy. You're not allowed to sell the OS. Maybe change selling to distributing. Apple wouldn't care any less, and Apple probably wouldn't take any offense in that. Go ahead.

 

[Nuvi]

Agree with others, it is a publicly available RSS feed so **** off. They should be thrilled Apple is including them in the app at all, thereby driving clicks to their websites. Talk about biting the hand.

It is free for consumers but not free to be re-distributed and packaged with advertising. There is hughe difference in that. There will be a law suit and Apple will loose.

 

[Arndroid]

Obviously you failed to read...

If the blogger has legitimately been granted explicit limited license to reproduce said content on their own server, then they are doing nothing wrong.

That limited license may not transfer to Apple who has just decided as a 3rd party to illegally violate copyright laws and reproduce said content through their own private distribution system without anyone's explicit consent.

Providing a RSS feed of your own content hosted on your own service / server for others to read, does not make the content public domain.

Others cannot legally come along and repackage your content into their own service without your explicit consent.

Apple is violating copyright laws. And they will get called on it.

Have a little read over the various pages on this site:

http://www.feedforall.com/rss2html....owledgebase-template.htm&GUID=a310&MAXITEMS=1

Several of the links on the left side navigation bar on that page discuss aspects of the issue as well.

RSS does not make content public domain. You may not like to believe it. But it is still protected by copyright laws.

By the way next time you post a link read it. That murky hem hawing link actually supports everything I said and nothing you said.

 

[Shinigami301]

With 90% of the tech and Moto blogs I read repurposing other people's content (including my own writings) the irony is at a stupendous level here.

Any blogger ought to be thrilled at the prospect of an unmatched global stage.

 

[Sonmi451]

I really want to like this app, it's perfect for what I want. I'm afraid it won't be that great since I think most people will opt out and not include their content. I don't blame them since I'm not sure how they'll get paid.

 

[OldSchoolMacGuy]

But in this case at least, they do get credit and make the majority of profit on any ads:

Advertising Opportunities
Monetization of Apple News Format content is made simple with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Keep 100% of the revenue from the ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. For more information, seeMonetizing News Content.

In addition if you get picked up by Apple, there's a chance of seeing hundreds or thousands of extra views of your content, even millions. I've had my content picked up by sites like Slashdot and seen over 200,000 views in a single day from them alone. Meant a nice ad check.

 

[AlecZ]

Yeah, emails are stupidly unreliable. You'd think by now there would be a well-adopted standard for email that involves a "yes, this email actually went to the recipient (maybe got filtered into spam, or he didn't read it, but he did get it)" receipt that works 100% of the time.

 

[AlecZ]

Isn't this a courtesy email anyway? I wouldn't expect Apple to even need to tell the publishers about this. Anyone must be allowed to take RSS feed content with a web scraper. I mean, a search engine takes the entire website without your consent.

Though Apple should not have said "you agree to..." in the email. Maybe they already automatically agreed to allow anyone to take their RSS feeds by posting RSS in the first place, but I can understand why sending a EULA would freak the bloggers out.

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

Yeah, emails are stupidly unreliable. You'd think by now there would be a well-adopted standard for email that involves a "yes, this email actually went to the recipient (maybe got filtered into spam, or he didn't read it, but he did get it)" receipt that works 100% of the time.

Um......
Don't know of a single email campaign that doesn't know how many emails were opened, bounced, spammed, clicked, ect.

Its 2015 not 1990. All the analytics are available.

 

[AlecZ]

Um......
Don't know of a single email campaign that doesn't know how many emails were opened, bounced, spammed, clicked, ect.

Its 2015 not 1990. All the analytics are available.

That's only possible via some exploit like sticking remote images in there, and it's avoidable. ACTUALLY, maybe I should do that in all my emails to see if people got them!

 

[mekatzer]

You want some cheese with that whine?

 

[ThisIsNotMe]

That's only possible via some exploit like sticking remote images in there.

That isn't an 'exploit' what so ever. It is the hallmark of every email marketing campaign be it MailChimp, Constant Contact, AWeber, ect.

 

[AlecZ]

That isn't an 'exploit' what so ever. It is the hallmark of every email marketing campaign be it MailChimp, Constant Contact, AWeber, ect.

It's certainly a tricky workaround you might not expect that abuses how the client loads an email, so I personally would call that an exploit. Anyway, security-conscious users disable the loading of remote images, so that doesn't work on them.

 

[Abazigal]

This is a weird argument. Web pages are publicly available to anyone too. That doesn't mean that Apple can just scrape the content and offer it in their own app without the publisher's agreement. Going further, you could also claim that text in a printed book is publicly available to anyone ...

So maybe I am slow. But there are already many apps and services which do this. From Flipboard, to Zite, to apps like Reeder, to even Apple's own shared links feature in Safari (which can be repurposed into a makeshift RSS reader).

I don't see or hear anyone raising a stink over this issue back then. I don't believe the developers went about asking every publisher for permission expressly either. How is Apple doing anything differently? Or are people making noise simply because it's Apple?

 

[AlecZ]

This is a weird argument. Web pages are publicly available to anyone too. That doesn't mean that Apple can just scrape the content and offer it in their own app without the publisher's agreement.

I'm pretty sure they can. Every search engine does that. I expect that there's also some law that says the scraper must allow webmasters to opt out some way, or at least search companies do it to be courteous. Google and Yahoo! allow you to opt-out of searches by putting a certain robots.txt file in your web root. Without it, though, they'll get all they can.

 

[jamescobalt]

I run a small blog and it's hard to nearly impossible to make money now. It's fine when there are companies that clearly can't afford to pay to use my content, but I'd be really, really, pissed if a big company like Apple came along, stole my work, monetized it and then didn't both to pay me anything and on top of it they send me this letter telling me that I'm opted in and hey, even if I didn't see the email.

1. Read the article. They are not monetizing anybody's work unless they opt into it (though the app has ads outside of the articles; much like any news aggregation service).
2. If you don't want your full content appearing in news readers then you don't put your full content into your RSS feed. That's how RSS works. It was designed for this purpose. Every major (and probably minor) publishing platform includes options for how much of each article to include in the feed. If your blog is on Wordpress, you go to Admin > Options > Reading

 

[Arcady]

Ten pages (in an annoyingly giant font) of mostly rants from people who don't understand what RSS is for.

This would be like me putting a box of stuff out on the street and writing "FREE!!!" on the box, then getting mad when somebody took something out of the box.

 

[flyinmac]

Ok. Those arguing for Apple to be allowed to do this.... I have a simple solution....

All the RSS feeds can fix Apple for good. For 2 weeks after Apple starts this infringement, every RSS site can publish a licensed copy of some raunchy nudes that they finance rights to with a group fund.

Let Apple scrape their RSS feeds, and suddenly the entire Apple news program is raunchy porn.

Parents sue Apple. Apple gets caught up in a nasty scandal. The Feds come in and penalize Apple for not restricting access to minors.

Apple gets sued by the original people who own the pictures because they didn't pay the royalties that the RSS sites did.

Apple tries to sue the RSS sites only to lose the case because they have no signed papers to permit Apple to have ever republished the content in the first place.

Apple could be the next PeeWee Herman in 2 weeks if everyone worked together to let Apple's tactics destroy themselves.

 

[PBRsg]

Hahaha. Well, if Apple hadn't sent anything, and then didn't use people's content, there would be complaints that Apple wasn't being inclusive. "Apple, why isn't my content included!?!?!" Always easy to complain...

The anti-Apple whining is becoming incessant and pathetic these days.