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

[Arndroid]

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.

There is nothing to stand. The email is a statement of fact that also gives publishers the right to opt out of the news service. Neither of these are things required of apple.

 

[Arndroid]

You shouldnt have to actively act to preserve your copyright.

It's no different than any other property - I can explicitly give you permission to use my property, you cant just say "hey i'm going to use this unless you tell me otherwise".

Another person who doesn't know what an RSS feed is

 

[Arndroid]

What a silly silly comment. You can start with BBC mate, there is the first one complaining. Confiscating domains.... Ha ha ha ha ! Wow!

Read the BBC article bud, while you have an issue with publishers it seems, does not mean they are idiots! There are some very reputable agencies that make chumps on MR looks like idiots with the content they publish. And yes thier IT departments also know how thier sites and feeds work, as do thier legal teams.

None of what they say or do support your position. Point to some case law where someone was prevented from rebroadcasting an intact RSS feed. I have actually been publishing content on the internet long before the BBC.

The RSS feed issue is pretty cut and dry. This has turned into an anti-vaccination level of ignorance where people keep digging up irrelevant snippets not understanding what they are saying.

These websites you keep misunderstanding do understand RSS and none of them have issues with apple because this is how RSS feeds are intended to be used.

 

[Arndroid]

The name of the protocol has absolutely no significance in terms of the copyright laws which attach to content.

Yeah except you don't understand how copyright law applies to distributing content via RSS feeds. As long as the content is rebroadcasted in its entirety it is not violating any copyrights.

I honestly don't know where some of you get your information. If someone were to scrap or modify your feed then you might have a copyright complaint. If they rebroadcast it fully as you distributed it they are not violating any copyrights.

 

[Arndroid]

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.

It's pretty clear most people here don't understand what an RSS feed is or how it works.

That people think apple has to gain permission to use an RSS feed is pretty much all you need to know.

 

[alvindarkness]

That's not what the letters say at all though. All Apple is doing is telling publishers what they should already know. The email is not some legal contract it is simply pointing out that publishers who broadcast content via RSS are responsible for actually having the right to do so. If Apple never sent the email it would still be true.

It would be great if it wasnt written like a legal contract and simply pointed out the obvious, which in some ways it does sure. But look at the language -:

• You agree to let us use, display, store, and reproduce the content in your RSS feeds including placing advertising next to or near your content without compensation to you. Don’t worry, we will not put advertising inside your content without your permission.

• You confirm that you have all necessary rights to publish your RSS content, and allow Apple to use it for News as we set forth here. You will be responsible for any payments that might be due to any contributors or other third parties for the creation and use of your RSS content.

• If we receive a legal claim about your RSS content, we will tell you so that you can resolve the issue, including indemnifying Apple if Apple is included in the claim.

• You can remove your RSS feed whenever you want by opting out or changing your settings in News Publisher.

I'm sorry but I dont "agree to", "allow", or feel the need to "confirm" anything in a one way agreement sent via email.

The language used should have been vastly different. It should not read like a EULA. If anything it should have simply stated the opt-out option, and explained a bit of general legalise about how RSS feeds work that applies to any software that collates and displays them.

 

[ginkobiloba]

There is nothing to stand. The email is a statement of fact that also gives publishers the right to opt out of the news service. Neither of these are things required of apple.

Thats is not the issue. That email is also trying to bind you to legally to pay Apple's lawyer's fees if they are sued. As well as the monetizing issue. Without opt-in.
Those are the ONLY things the publisher's are upset about. They don't really have an issue with being included in a RSS app.

 

[Arndroid]

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.

1. Apple News is essentially going to be part RSS feed viewer. So why does apple have to play by different rules than everyone else?

2. Publishers don't have a say if aggregators place ads around their RSS feed. As long as the RSS feed is presented unmolested this is a non issue and again magically holding apple to standards nobody else is subject to.

3. There is nothing to be legally binding. Apple does not need to ask for permission to include RSS feeds and they don't need to ask to be indemnified from a publishers malfeasance.

Literally Apple sent out the email as a courtesy to publishers.

 

[Manderby]

"Publicly avaliable" does not mean "public domain". RSS feeds are a container for (almost always copyrighted) content. The RSS Feed is publicly availabe but the content is not public domain. I am upset everytime I find my content on different sites who make money with it. I closed several kiddie sites by simply sending an email to the provider. They take them down immediately.

Of course it depends what you put into an RSS feed. If you put a whole article in it, you can not blame an automated machine for using it. So caution on both sides. But the claims are not just hot air.

 

[Arndroid]

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.

As long as apple republishes the RSS feed as published they are doing none of that. Companies who don't want their RSS content broadcast can turn it off.

The only consistent guideline for RSS use is that the actual feed not be altered or edited. Providing an ad based aggregation service is not a violation of anything. Publishers have full control over what is broadcast in the RSS FEED. If they don't want people using RSS feeds as they are intended then they can not participate.

 

[alvindarkness]

1. Apple News is essentially going to be part RSS feed viewer. So why does apple have to play by different rules than everyone else?

I agree, they shouldnt have to play by different rules.

2. Publishers don't have a say if aggregators place ads around their RSS feed. As long as the RSS feed is presented unmolested this is a non issue and again magically holding apple to standards nobody else is subject to.

Absolutely agree.

3. There is nothing to be legally binding. Apple does not need to ask for permission to include RSS feeds and they don't need to ask to be indemnified from a publishers malfeasance.

Exactly, they shouldnt even mention it in their emails, it should be a given.

Literally Apple sent out the email as a courtesy to publishers.

Thats the part I dont agree with. It would be great if it was a courtey email, explaining a few things including the opt-out process. But it specifically reads as a legal agreement, which surely it can not be, as these publishers never asked to be bound to any Apple terms/conditions in the first place.

The first paragraph of their email states that we "agree to let" them etc. How about simply state "We have chosen to include your RSS feed in our new service". No agreements needed right?

The second paragraph states we "confirm we have the right to publish" the content. How about stating that any copyright complains will be passed onto the publisher out of courtesy, and Apple can at any time remove feeds from their service at its own discretion , as there is no legal/bound obligations involved between the two parties.

The third paragraph states we "indemnify Apple". How about stating that if any legal dispute erupts over the contents of a feed, we will point the parties in your direction as the publisher.

You know, state the obvious, but without some pseudo weirdo twilight zone contract email.

 

[MH01]

None of what they say or do support your position. Point to some case law where someone was prevented from rebroadcasting an intact RSS feed. I have actually been publishing content on the internet long before the BBC.

The RSS feed issue is pretty cut and dry. This has turned into an anti-vaccination level of ignorance where people keep digging up irrelevant snippets not understanding what they are saying.

These websites you keep misunderstanding do understand RSS and none of them have issues with apple because this is how RSS feeds are intended to be used.

You are not even understanding the issue here. Its not about rebroadcasting an intact RSS feed.

Head your own advice, stop digging up snippets and re-read the information provided to understand the issue.

So, you published content before the BBC, therefore know better.....right.......

 

[Crayo]

That's really awesome for you, but until they actually try and use your content, not only does your opinion not matter, it doesn't change copyright law.

Well, well. Online news publishers live by the traffic; direct or indirect. It's all about maximizing profit. If someone offers you free audience and exposure, usually other considerations subside for business reasons.

Even if it only was 1/3 of Apple News content displays leading to clicks to publisher own site/whatever, Apple News would still drive huge increase to most publishers traffic and thus eventual profits.

And about this heartbreak caused by opt-in vs. opt-out: if you don't want to syndicate, opt-out or stop syndicating with RSS. It's a nice gesture from Apple to actually notify publishers about this. Most RSS aggregators don't bother sending any notifications and you only notice their actions by incoming visitor surges (which are most welcome).

Best thing here is that more publishers opt-out of Apple RSS syndication, more direct or indirect traffic (and thus more profit) they leave to those who stay. Everyone gets what they desire

This is my opinion.

 

[Crayo]

Sequence of events:

• As a news publisher you pimp out RSS feeds because you know they are a way to generate some traffic and thus more revenue. Copyright? What about copyright? they are not just a public service or a nice feature - they are purely there for the business reasons.
• Dozens of existing RSS aggregators may pick up your feed and generate some traffic. Great!
• Usually RSS aggregators don't make notices. They just pull your RSS feed and run with it. Still Great. That is what you wanted after all.
• If you want to "opt-out" for some strange reason; you'd have to firewall them off or stop RSS feeds completely. Not an option, because, well, you like ... the money.
• You still have daydreams about a industry big name, like Apple, wanting to syndicate your feed to billions of people in their ecosystem. Not going to happen. Right?
  
• One day Apple comes and notifies that they are interested by email. They offer legal framework, a policy and, as a kind bonus, an opt-out feature. They have zero obligation to do any of that, but hey, they are being nice.
• You as a "news publisher" suddenly get "upset" because now you can opt-out without setting any firewall rules

What am I missing here?

 

[Aaargh!]

Sequence of events:

• One day Apple comes and notifies that they are interested by email. They offer legal framework, a policy and, as a kind bonus, an opt-out feature. They have zero obligation to do any of that, but hey, they are being nice.

What am I missing here?

What you're missing is that RSS feeds are publicly available for anyone to use, you don't need any kind of legal agreement to use them. Apple did not have to send this e-mail. They sent an e-mail not to give you the opportunity to opt-out, but to try and cover their own ass by trying to shift some of their legal responsibilities from themselves to the publisher of the RSS feed. And they do it by e-mail by means of an opt-out.

A courtesy note to inform you they will be using your content would be fine. This is not that, this is basically saying: "We're taking your content and publishing it to a large audience for our own profit, and if it causes any legal problems we're going to shift the blame to you. Thanks for your contribution to Tim Cook's pension fund".

 

[Crayo]

What you're missing is that RSS feeds are publicly available for anyone to use, you don't need any kind of legal agreement to use them. Apple did not have to send this e-mail. They sent an e-mail not to give you the opportunity to opt-out, but to try and cover their own ass by trying to shift some of their legal responsibilities from themselves to the publisher of the RSS feed. And they do it by e-mail by means of an opt-out.

A courtesy note to inform you they will be using your content would be fine. This is not that, this is basically saying: "We're taking your content and publishing it to a large audience for our own profit, and if it causes any legal problems we're going to shift the blame to you. Thanks for your contribution to Tim Cook's pension fund".

Well, what you are missing is the fact that the legal responsibility for your content never left you as a publisher. Your content is your responsibility through other RSS aggregators as it is with Apple. No difference there. Nothing new.

Apple just pointed out this existing fact in case someone had an illusion of Apple taking any ownership to the content in question. Due to copyright they can't claim ownership, and thus they can't claim legal responsibility.

If pointing that fact out gets you upset, maybe you shouldn't be syndicating the content you are and will stay legally responsible in the first place.

 

[Nuvi]

As long as apple republishes the RSS feed as published they are doing none of that. Companies who don't want their RSS content broadcast can turn it off.

The only consistent guideline for RSS use is that the actual feed not be altered or edited. Providing an ad based aggregation service is not a violation of anything. Publishers have full control over what is broadcast in the RSS FEED. If they don't want people using RSS feeds as they are intended then they can not participate.

You have no understanding of intellectual property rights and laws governing them. You think use of RSS protocol somehow gives third party the right to take someone else's content and attach third party advertising to it? Use of particular protocol doesn't affect IP rights. Your posts are full of nonsense.

 

[litmag01]

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

oh well, back to RSS feeds for me

Well, it is a free market. And besides, this is an opt-out, not an opt-in. If content creators create desirable content, people will buy it. Just because a developer, writer, or any innovator for that matter, creates something doesn't mean it is the best thing for the market.

 

[neuropsychguy]

They sent an e-mail not to give you the opportunity to opt-out, but to try and cover their own [*!] by trying to shift some of their legal responsibilities from themselves to the publisher of the RSS feed. And they do it by e-mail by means of an opt-out.

A courtesy note to inform you they will be using your content would be fine. This is not that, this is basically saying: "We're taking your content and publishing it to a large audience for our own profit, and if it causes any legal problems we're going to shift the blame to you. Thanks for your contribution to Tim Cook's pension fund".

Let's not misrepresent the legal side of this. This is about Apple stating they are not legally responsible for the content they will link to in their app, nor should they be responsible.

Is YouTube to blame when someone illegally uploads a video he doesn't have rights to upload? Should that individual be responsible or Google? Should the copyright holder go after Google or the uploader? The answer is the uploader. Yes, Google will respond and respect take down notices (as they should) but just because someone posts content that is done so illegally doesn't mean Google is legally liable (unless they refuse to take down the content when notified). Does a copyright holder go after (and win) the ISP just because someone was using their internet connection to do something illegal?

Remember, anyone can sue anyone for anything. That does not mean a lawsuit will be considered but what Apple is saying is that they are not legally responsible for the content of the news articles. Should someone try and sue over something republished in the News app, the producer of the content is liable, not Apple. Too many people are reacting emotionally to this without stopping to think clearly about it.

Apple could have handled this better but most of the controversy is because of misunderstandings.

 

[Crayo]

What Apple is saying is that they are not legally responsible for the content of the news articles should someone try and sue over something republished in the News app. Too many people are reacting emotionally to this without stopping to think.

Exactly.

Apple has not shifted any legal responsibilities. Even if they wanted, they couldn't due to copyright. They just made it clear where those responsibilities have always been, where they are and where they will stay; in case the someone had any confusion about that.

Unlike many other less respectable RSS aggregators, Apple News can be opted-out easily. Courtesy feature offered by Apple.

If anything, publishers should be celebrating the fact that one of the industry giants wants to syndicate their content to billions of customers; and not get emotionally "upset" over imaginary reasons.

 

[darkknight14]

Could this be the closest thing to MacRumors in an iOS app..

Will we be able to follow MR stories in this app?

 

[malexandria]

I see your point here, but isn't this kind of what happens now? Exposure is the trade-off. Sure I could get all upset focusing on the radio station's business model... Or I could view it as fan building exposure, and focus on my own business model that monetizes my product, all while taking advantage of the humongous user base that I didn't have to curate.

Artist don't care if Radio stations have ads because you know, radio stations have to PAY to license the content. So this is a really stupid analogy.

 

[AngusW]

You realize this is what Flipboard does? Digg? All the similar?

I'm saying that I won't use their News app. I don't even use flipboard, I go straight to the news sources.

 

[HenryDJP]

You shouldnt have to actively act to preserve your copyright.

It's no different than any other property - I can explicitly give you permission to use my property, you cant just say "hey i'm going to use this unless you tell me otherwise".

Uh, come again? Are you talking about RSS feeds? Doesn't sound like it.

Anyway, I dunno. I still think it's too much "Hand Holding". On one of the spectrum the members on this forum and other tech sites wish Apple would create iOS and OS X to be more like Windows and other systems whereas they have more control with the system to be creative as they feel they don't need to be "hand held". Then when Apple says "decide for yourself" (especially about something this damn small in nature), giving the authors CHOICE then they get all fussy like a 5 year old. Too much entitlement. What ever happened to HUMANS that could use their own minds? Now some people want tech companies to do their thinking for them. Nuff Said.

 

[haravikk]

Personally I don't see the issue here; if the RSS feeds are publicly accessible, then any compatible RSS reader can already open them and display them advertising etc. Apple's news app isn't any different in that regard, the only difference will be it including as many default RSS feeds as it can in order to get broad coverage.

I assume there will be opt-out avenues other than the e-mail (i.e- a web-page somewhere?), and this really is no different than search spiders indexing RSS feeds; they will do it by default unless you opt-out with a robots.txt file, and they can display advertising if they want to.