I don't know why people don't get this. Apple's email certainly should have been reworded to sound less like a contract, but at the end of the day it was simply something they sent out as a courtesy that I'm sure no other service has done.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Publishers Upset Over Apple's Opt-Out Terms for Inclusion in iOS 9 News App
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't know why people don't get this. Apple's email certainly should have been reworded to sound less like a contract, but at the end of the day it was simply something they sent out as a courtesy that I'm sure no other service has done.
Not going to read every post in this long thread but it amazes me that it took 52 posts for someone to make this very basic point. An RSS feed is not a waiver of copyright. Nor is it permission to republish material for commercial purposes. Private, personal consumption of an RSS feed is entirely different from using it to make money while waiving liability and requiring indemnification.
...adding, an email notification as a "contract" to enforce indemnification? Good luck with that, Apple.
But they did that, and they don't care. They will sue anyone out of money and if anyone sues apple for the content that they stole, apparently the content creator has to get a lawyer to protect apple.
Prove it wrong or just go away. Your anonymous post "wrong on all accounts" without backing up is hilarious. Must be recess. That's it with reading your posts.
Last edited:
After reading through a lot of the posts, I realize that I have two questions for the Apple fanboys:
1 - In which universe does iOS have "billions" of users?
2 - I thought Apple's business plan was to make money by selling expensive software. Since when did they start to make money by going full Google and adding ads to (third-party!) content?
1 - In which universe does iOS have "billions" of users?
2 - I thought Apple's business plan was to make money by selling expensive software. Since when did they start to make money by going full Google and adding ads to (third-party!) content?
#2 The same minute they became too big and realized people will buy their stuff even if it's iPoop.. poop in a box.. yes..
While I love apple, I have android , and windows devices, which I find allows me to have a somewhat balanced viewpoint . I just love gadgets and tech. Fanboys, make me sad. A company will not improve if they are worshiped and not questioned when they make mistakes, or release average products. Every year I hope for an awesome android phone to be released, knowing it will lead to a better iPhone.
1. In the same universe there is only 1 company : Apple
2. Hardware - the software updates are free
I love windows 10. Tried it on my phone it's a very good OS. But winmo phones (hardware) right now all suck. MS mentioned a flagship phone coming in the /build/ conference. So if it's not a standard crap plastic nokia phone with better specs, and is something actually nice and will be even half exciting, I think they might start winning a little bit more market share and maybe show up on Apple's radar as blip.
I think Win10 will be a success. Hooking up your phone to a monitor and seeing full windows is amazing. Tablet/desktop mode works beautifully. Fingers crossed that someone/anyone threatens apple just a little.
In accordance with the lawsuit regarding the redistribution and rebroadcast of "broadcast OTA Television". I would argue that any entity that rebroadcasts or redistributes internet content as part of their own "software" or "application" should be subject to obtain the rights to do so directly from the provider in writing. Not the you agree to X just by existing... definitely not OK apple (and in general i support them on most things.)
The problem is they expect the RSS feed owner to indemnify them; so if Apple gets sued they can simply pass on the settlement to them. IANAL but it seems that expecting a valid contract could be obtained by simply including a must opt out clause is nonsense; if that was the case I could email similar terms to Apple for their content and expect them to honor therms a contract requires offer, acceptance and consideration. From where I sit Apple made an offer their was no acceptance an a meeting of the minds never occurred the problem is many sights lack the cash to fight Apple; although if one did I bet Apple would fold and settle rather than risk losing in court.
In the end, it is no different than someone spamming a bunch of sites and then expecting to be in the clear if someone objects to what they did after sites didn't opt out. A more reasonable thing for Apple is to use the RSS feed like anyone else does without making unreasonable demands on the provider.
As many here have already said, this is just crazy because these publishers are creating the RSS feed for public consumption. Apple is simply making it easy to do so. If they have a problem with Apple's News app, then they should have a problem with Flipboard, Buffer, Facebook, Twitter, Pulse, and the hundreds of other news readers out there.
At least Apple is giving them a way to opt out of it. That's more than I can say for any of the other apps or services where you can manually enter any RSS feed you want.
At least Apple is giving them a way to opt out of it. That's more than I can say for any of the other apps or services where you can manually enter any RSS feed you want.
You claim Apple loads the content from the original source where it's monetized by the rights holder every page hit? That's not technically feasible, the publications original formatting, font, etc would fragment the experience in News app. Let alone the display of the ads, pop-up paywalls, etc.
What are you claiming exactly ? Where are the links with proof that publishers will adhere to a new publishing format for Apple News, and get a cut from the profits of Apple News readership?
I hope everyone criticising Apple here realises that if you personally decide to post something illegal and get sued, MacRumors probably isn't going to want to pick up your legal costs. And neither is Apple/Google/Mozilla/Microsoft etc for providing the browser people read it on!
Fixed that for you. RSS is not a waiver of copyright. It does not grant a (liability free!) right to republish or retransmit for commercial gain. Doing so is not "consumption." It's taking copyrighted content and reproducing it in a different format to further a commercial enterprise.
...adding, my local free newspaper is really, simply delivered to my house every Wednesday. That does not grant me the right to republish its content for any reason I want.
But Apple is just (going to be) delivering the RSS that others already decided to publish. In your analogy Apple would not be a commercial newspaper, illegally selling others' work by infringing their copyright - it would be a paper delivery boy/girl, delivering your free newspaper to you. There are many paper delivery boys/girls (like RSS readers/aggregators), some deliver your papers folded carefully just how you like, some deliver in a weird and unappealing manner, throwing the paper at your house carelessly... but none of them are claiming to write the paper, or be paid for writing the paper (in Apple's case, it's a bonus service/app for their freely provided iOS, so they're not even being paid at all).
No, in your analogy Apple is the paper delivery boy/girl taking the original paper content, rearranging it, repackaging it, selling his/her own ads and delivering his/her own commercial product to the consumer (while demanding the original publisher indemnify and hold him/her harmless for their actions!).
Because a publisher chooses to make product available for free consumption does not mean the publisher waives copyright to the content.
There's nothing magic about the RSS delivery medium that waives copyright just like having a paper boy/girl deliver it or placing stacks free to take (e.g free weeklies) doesn't waive copyright. RSS is not a get out of jail free card.
I never said RSS waived copyright, it doesn't. Just like a web browser doesn't by displaying publicly published articles. This app is just going to be a curated reader for RSS feeds. Apple aren't going to be selling them, or claiming they wrote the content, are they? If merely delivering RSS feeds is copyright infringement now, should Apple not make a web browser either? I mean they deliver other people's HTML, Javascript etc in Safari...
Another person that doesn't understand that availability of content doesn't negate copyright.
Last edited:
None of which means copyright isn't being breached. TV transmissions, library books, music on radio, youtube are all freely available but the content is all still copyrighted.