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

[SlCKB0Y]

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.

So show me some source which supports this. Show me how copyright law applies to distributing content via RSS feeds....

Show me how making something available by RSS allows Apple to pull it to centralised server, change the format of it and redistribute it...

 

[Robisan]

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?

That doesn't matter. It's not legal for me to post a full copyrighted article here on this forum. That goes beyond "fair use." Apple wanst to post them in a curated section that will have Apple-sold advertising, generating revenue in a for-profit business unit.

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...

Browsers display content exactly as the publisher chooses, including advertising sold and/or pay/subscription firewalls, just as paper displays exactly what is printed on it. Your question is akin to asking whether paper manufacturers should stop supplying publishers or their printers.

 

[aslucher24]

1- A public broadcasting of a feed doesn't mean it is not copyrighted. It doesn't mean you can do anything you want with it. If a song is played over the readio , it is still copyrighted. You can't record it and sell it to someone else without authorization.If a movie is publicly broadcasted on TV , is still copyrighted and you can't do whatever you wish with it. Same thing with texts ( unless they are explicitely under some form of Creative Commons rights )
( and yes, I know a thing or two about copyrights unlike you. In fact i make my living by creating copyrighted audiovisual content )

2- The point of my "mail" was that you CAN NOT legally bind someone in a contract by a tacit accord. This what my mail meant, and that is what Apple is doing with that mail. They are legally binding you to reinburse their lawyer's fees ( wich I guess are not the cheapest on earth) if someone sues them. Without even you knowing that you are on their app, or asking to do so, because you missed their mail.
That is NOT how contracts work. A contract is an OPT-IN.

You're removing the point and reason for RSS. You also blew past my other point of, how it was just fine before, for other aggregators. But now that Apple is doing it, it's not okay....

EDIT: Oh and to your copyrighted material part. Apple isn't claiming ownership. The great awesome part to reporting is, you're allowed to use reports from feeds and such, with proper citation. Yes, radio stations play copywrited material... But you can choose which radio you play your stations on.... That's the point of RSS...

 

[Robisan]

You're removing the point and reason for RSS. You also blew past my other point of, how it was just fine before, for other aggregators. But now that Apple is doing it, it's not okay....

Other aggregators either license (mutually agreed payment or other consideration) the full use of the content from the owner or they use a "fair use" portion of the content and provide a link to the owners website. Reprinting entire material as part of your own for-profit enterprise is not fair use.

EDIT: Oh and to your copyrighted material part. Apple isn't claiming ownership. The great awesome part to reporting is, you're allowed to use reports from feeds and such, with proper citation.

You're allowed to use a "fair use" portion of it. Acknowledging the owner doesn't make it fair use. Copyright is assumed unless it is specifically waived.

...citing sources generally prevents accusations of plagiarism, but is an insufficient defense against copyright violations. For example, reprinting a copyrighted book without permission, while citing the original author, would be copyright infringement but not plagiarism.

~~~

For a recent work to be in the public domain the author must specifically opt out of copyright.​

 

[palmerc]

I also feel that way if someone steals your car and sells it to me cheap.

I don't own a car. In any case analogies with physical objects is irrelevant. A few hundred choice words does not a car make.

 

[Toltepeceno]

I don't own a car. In any case analogies with physical objects is irrelevant. A few hundred choice words does not a car make.

So you pick and choose what is relevant? Ridiculous. Ever hear of copyright? Words are owned just as are cars, songs are owned which is a few hundred words. How about books? Truly ridiculous post. Stealing and reselling copyrighted material is just like with cars. Period.

Or your iphone, ipad, macbook pro, etc.

 

[Robisan]

I don't own a car. In any case analogies with physical objects is irrelevant. A few hundred choice words does not a car make.

So "intellectual property" isn't really property? It has no ownership rights? If you had some IP you'd feel differently.

 

[flyinmac]

So "intellectual property" isn't really property? It has no ownership rights? If you had some you'd feel differently.

That can be interpreted in so many ways. All of them funny

 

[ginkobiloba]

You're removing the point and reason for RSS. You also blew past my other point of, how it was just fine before, for other aggregators. But now that Apple is doing it, it's not okay....

EDIT: Oh and to your copyrighted material part. Apple isn't claiming ownership. The great awesome part to reporting is, you're allowed to use reports from feeds and such, with proper citation. Yes, radio stations play copywrited material... But you can choose which radio you play your stations on.... That's the point of RSS...

Except my post wasn't about that, I was reacting about the fact that they were binding you to a tacit contract concerning lawsuits. The fact that it is a public feed doesn't make make it anymore subject to being binded to a contract without you expressly signing-in. Even if it's a public feed, it's still your own, and others are limited to what they can do with it ( like saying , hey if someone sues us because of your feed , you have to pay our fees even if you have not really signed any contract with us )