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

[Shirasaki]

If it's a public RSS feed, then is there really a problem with what's Apple's doing? They're just using content that's publicly available content and providing it to Apple users. They're not charging for it, nor are they redistributing content that's supposed to be behind a paywall.

To me it seems the email was just to let the publishers know that Apple is using the content that's already being provided and allowing the providers to opt-out if they wish. As long as Apple isn't claiming that they created the content (and giving credit to the creators) then I don't see what the problem is.

The real problem is: whether you want to use or not, you SHOULD make sure others know this.

Assume this: You can install any software without agreeing EULA prior, while app developer could embed this EULA into help page, and assume you agree this EULA unconditionally as long as you use this software.

Remember previous U2 "gate"? (If I could call this) Thousands of users are angry with this force pushing. Apple failed this time. However they tend to do this AGAIN.

That is all.

 

[Tork]

So, you missed the part where she is also saying : "
However, the optout approach is very unusual and I don't see how the notice could form a binding contract without a positive reply.
Apple clearly wants to launch with as much content as possible and has taken this risk-based approach. Some publishers may object and even threaten to sue. "

I agree that it's unorthodox for sure. But point being, the terms are the industry norm. Not sure they even care if it's a binding contract. They have all the lawyers money can buy -- they know what they're doing. More, it seems like it's just as an FYI, here's the deal sort of thing. And with terms that aren't unusual and make sense. If anyone threatens to sue...maybe they should just take the muuuuuch easier approach: click reply, type "No," and click send. Done.

 

[aleni]

apple is the new microsoft

 

[Shirasaki]

apple is the new microsoft

Do every company need to go to this step? I mean, several years trying to force customers doing something, you know, whether right or wrong.

 

[flyinmac]

I agree that it's unorthodox for sure. But point being, the terms are the industry norm. Not sure they even care if it's a binding contract. They have all the lawyers money can buy -- they know what they're doing. More, it seems like it's just as an FYI, here's the deal sort of thing. And with terms that aren't unusual and make sense. If anyone threatens to sue...maybe they should just take the muuuuuch easier approach: click reply, type "No," and click send. Done.

You can bet most likely no one would "see" these emails. I get about 10 emails a day from Apple. I have for many years. I've "opted out" numerous times. Now I just ignore them.

As soon as I see who it's from, if they're associated with Apple or an Apple department, I don't bother reading it.

Once every 6 months or so, I type Apple into my email search and hit delete all.

Apple knows nobody reads their emails. That's what they're counting on.

And they'll be sued every which way if they try to use this scheme.

 

[iChrist]

I was actually looking forward to the News app, figures it screws content creators

oh well, back to RSS feeds for me

Pffft, yeah. These 'bloggers' should feel lucky anyone wants to read their garbage. Bloggers and people writing things on the internet are a dime a dozen skill-less 'job'.


.

 

[kcirtap00]

No, a published article and it's graphical content is the property of a newspaper, just like your drawings are your property.
Ignorance is still ignorance even if you say EULA pretending to be smart.
Bad try, though.

Did I say that transfer of ownership was involved? Just because you had to look up what EULA meant doesn't mean that I was trying to be smart.

 

[Luis Mazza]

Did I say that transfer of ownership was involved? Just because you had to look up what EULA meant doesn't mean that I was trying to be smart.

That is your problem: you're so common-place and yet you think you're special.

 

[flyinmac]

Pffft, yeah. These 'bloggers' should feel lucky anyone wants to read their garbage. Bloggers and people writing things on the internet are a dime a dozen skill-less 'job'.


.

Yep, bunch of worthless losers that publish dribble that so useless that Apple needs it to justify another worthless App that'll bring Apple a ton of advertising dollars for doing nothing other than pirating some content that apparently nobody wants to read anyway.

Yep, you must be right. Nobody wants to read it. That's why Apple needs it.

 

[kcirtap00]

That is your problem: you're so common-place and yet you think you're special.

Oooooo burn. Very relevant to the discussion too.

 

[kendallb]

Am I the only one who knows that most RSS feeds don't include the entire content of the article? There is only a title, a synopsis and a link to how to get TO the original site to read the entire article. Hell, RSS feeds don't even have a standard way to include thumbnail images!

People see to be freaking out thinking Apple is going to be stealing their content and making it their own. They can't! Unless the publisher signs up for their enhanced feed the most they can do is include the title and a synopsis and allow the reader to click over and read the original article on the original web site.

 

[flyinmac]

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.

With the reading skills and comprehension you've demonstrated so far, who knows what you think you read.

But, the link clearly discussed how RSS feeds are still protected by copyright, and one should not assume that they can syndicate the feed without explicit consent and signed license permitting you to republish it.

 

[igneousc]

Am I the only one who knows that most RSS feeds don't include the entire content of the article? There is only a title, a synopsis and a link to how to get TO the original site to read the entire article. Hell, RSS feeds don't even have a standard way to include thumbnail images!

People see to be freaking out thinking Apple is going to be stealing their content and making it their own. They can't! Unless the publisher signs up for their enhanced feed the most they can do is include the title and a synopsis and allow the reader to click over and read the original article on the original web site.

well that's up to the publisher. A lot of sites give their full content in the RSS feed

 

[igneousc]

Aren't there a ton of RSS Feed programs and apps out there that have "suggested feeds" and stuff like that. How is that any different than this?

 

[SlCKB0Y]

Yes, in the sense that Apple is somehow 'stealing' views from customers that would otherwise go straight to the provider's content without a middleman. Is this not the argument, that Apple would be taking views for itself and profiting? That customers will, in turn, not go to the provider's website? Probably not the best example but the point is, Apple is opening the door to millions of people to see the provider's RSS feed. Millions of people that would have probably never gone to the provider's website in the first place.

Again, you're totally missing the point. It's not about page views, its about Apple breaching copyright.

 

[kcirtap00]

You're pretty much wrong, those websites host their own original content as their main news. AFAIK they don't even aggregate anything, don't know why you brought them up.

Apple is taking copyrighted works into its hands, publishing them without a license, and to add insult to injury is monetizing them from iAds and keeping 100% of the rights holders ad profits to themselves ?! Unbelievable...that's piracy in my book.
Don't mistake a corporation profiting from republishing a 3rd party's work without the 3rd party consent or license, and compare them to yourself reading articles on your browser, the end user. It's just not the same thing.

Apple isn't claiming ownership of anything that's it's publishing and as has already been posted, the publishers keep 100% of the profits from their ads. Apple isn't doing anything different than Google News or the million other news syndication services. If these publishers didn't want their content redistributed, they shouldn't have publisted RSS feeds. All this will do is drive more traffic to publishers that may have gone unnoticed.

 

[SlCKB0Y]

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.

It's nothing like that at all because a box on the street does not have intellectual property rights associated with it.

If you view something on Youtube, do you think that you can then legally redistribute the content?

 

[flyinmac]

Aren't there a ton of RSS Feed programs and apps out there that have "suggested feeds" and stuff like that. How is that any different than this?

Suggesting you subscribe to something is no more a violation than you telling me that you read sports illustrated, and suggesting that I subscribe also.

Making a photo copy of sports illustrated and handing that copy to me gets us into a different area altogether.

 

[cmwade77]

Yes, RSS feeds are public; however, they are not intended for other companies to simply automatically add to their apps, they are intended for the average consumer to choose to add them to their RSS feed viewers. Additionally, Apple has set forth terms of use (including allowing advertisements) that the content providers never agreed to and instead are being forced to opt out, instead of opting in. This is not right and cannot possibly be legally binding.

 

[Tech198]

true...

opting in should never be automatic on anything website, or otherwise..... By doing this, u assume the worse...

Well, by also having no choice of opting in, u probably agree to allot more than what Apple just says.... its probably buried in fine print somewhere.

That's what u get from being with Apple..

 

[gnasher729]

i smell a lawsuit

Exactly. All these news publishing companies couldn't give a damn if the rights of end users were taken away, but suddenly they are very, very interested. How the attitude changes if it doesn't affect powerless individuals.

 

[Crayo]

I'd cry tears of joy if Apple ever contacted me about publishing my content to nearly 1 billion customers in a built-in feature of their OS. If I were a news publisher, I'd be willing to beg and pay for that privilege.

So, no. I don't think the news publishers are really upset over anything.

 

[Nuvi]

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.

Ever heard of IP or copy right laws and royalties tied to using that IP? You think you can just go and take some else's IP and repackage it with your own advertising and thru that monetize it? You end up paying royalty fees always when you do that. What Google is doing is steering the trafic to publishers web site and not repacking it to some proprietary application format. Read the BBC article.

 

[alvindarkness]

I think people can argue about copyright, ownership of content, generating revenue from other peoples work etc, and I can see both sides of the argument. The way I look at it is, they are RSS feeds, and Apple is doing nothing different to hundreds of other RSS apps out there. Except....

To actually send an email to those with public RSS feeds saying they "agree too..." a bunch of what sounds like legally binding conditions, unless they opt out. That to me is almost Orwellian in its level of manipulation, and stinks of high arrogance. If it ever holds up in court it will be a sad day for our freedoms.

 

[flyinmac]

I think people can argue about copyright, ownership of content, generating revenue from other peoples work etc, and I can see both sides of the argument. The way I look at it is, they are RSS feeds, and Apple is doing nothing different to hundreds of other RSS apps out there. Except....

To actually send an email to those with public RSS feeds saying they "agree too..." a bunch of what sounds like legally binding conditions, unless they opt out. That to me is almost Orwellian in its level of manipulation, and stinks of high arrogance. If it ever holds up in court it will be a sad day for our freedoms.

Quite right on the unsolicited email contract. It'll never hold up. Most people assume Apple emails are spam anyway. Who would open them? I haven't read any of the Apple emails that come in for about 10 years. I get 10 or 20 a day from Apple, all disregarded by me (because their opt-out never works). You can't just email someone and say here's my terms and you are stuck with them. Doesn't work, won't hold up in court.

By the way, you owe me 2 million dollars unless you opt out by 6 am (West Coast Time) tomorrow in writing with a notarized signature... unfortunately, the notary's office doesn't open until 10 am... oh well, waiting for my check in the mail

This is one tactic Apple will be retracting before too long... It'll never stand.