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
You are, yes. Some RSS Feeds are published as personal use only. That means the copyright holder has stated they do not want their feed gathered by news aggregators, blogs, forums, and then republished without their permission. I'm not sure that just because a content creator has chosen to make content available using RSS, it means they automatically give up their rights and protections about how that content may be used.
I can't believe anyone actually thinks this. You can't just stick an opt-out contract in an email. It is not binding.
"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."
If I were to send you an email that says "you agree to give me all your money unless you respond to this email", what would you think then?
They are most certainly not. Just because e.g. bloggers offer an RSS feed for the convenience of their readers does not mean that they relinquish the rights to their content.
No, Apple is specifically not monetizing the content unless permission is explicitly given. (although it's not out of the question for their terms to change). I am aware that they can place ads "next" to it, but that's a little different.
The primary issue is not so much Apple accessing their RSS feeds. It's that Apple is attempting to impose (questionable) legally binding terms onto the authors - this is the usual opt in vs opt out debate, except there's legalese tied into it, e.g. the indemnification clause, which is what makes this rather skeevy.
Last edited:
There are so many things here that are wrong. Apple clearly wants all the benefits and none of the downside. Placing ads next to the content does nothing for the content providers. Herein lies the problem with RSS feeds. Publishers are essentially freely giving out their content. Initially it was done with the thought of individuals using it. Now you are having companies re-purposing the content and profiting off someone else's work with no return to the original content creator.
Not going to go away any time soon and an issue bigger than Apple which I don't think has faced any court challenege at this point.
Not going to go away any time soon and an issue bigger than Apple which I don't think has faced any court challenege at this point.
That doesn't matter. Apple can't just send an email that says "you agree to this", as they are doing.
The issue guys, is in the language. It has nothing to do with using the RSS feeds. The language states that in the event of a lawsuit, you are agreeing to "indemnify " Apple. That is huge and you are automatically accepting of this, even if you never saw/got the email or forgot to respond, etc.
I can see where the author is coming from, and I do think they should be compensated for their work, but I've got to agree with this above comment...
Apple News seems to be an RSS reader for which the user happens to delegate curation to a 3rd party. The whole point of making your news available via RSS is for easy syndication. The fact that Apple lets you opt out is more than you get from any other RSS application/device, and in fact, is probably what you want, since they're actively trying to find as much content (and thereby send you as much traffic) as possible.
This smells like a Prima Donna writer looking to start something and/or get some free publicity... ironically publicity Apple was willing to send their way via the very app they're complaining about. If I were Apple I'd consider that their notice of lack of consent and not send a single click their way.
A news article is published with the intention that it be read by the public. Apple's software is covered by an EULA that you agree to when you install it that prohibits redistribution. Nice try though.
Yeah... unless I'm misunderstanding something here, I don't understand how any of these publishers have a leg to stand on legally? I don't think I even understand why they'd take issue with Apple's use of their RSS feeds at all?!
Basically, you publish your content to the public at no charge via an RSS newsfeed that you choose to provide. So Apple comes along as an aggregator, collecting up the contents of these feeds and plunks them down into their News app, giving you more exposure and readership. And you're mad you have to "opt out" to get them not to do this?
It seems to me like technically, Apple never even had to so much as INFORM you they had plans to do this, much less provide an "opt out" mechanism?
Basically, you publish your content to the public at no charge via an RSS newsfeed that you choose to provide. So Apple comes along as an aggregator, collecting up the contents of these feeds and plunks them down into their News app, giving you more exposure and readership. And you're mad you have to "opt out" to get them not to do this?
It seems to me like technically, Apple never even had to so much as INFORM you they had plans to do this, much less provide an "opt out" mechanism?
I don't think they're asking for rights are they? They're 'including' it in an aggregated app designed to optimize the contents delivery to those that fit the target audience. Key points here are optimizing delivery, the rights to the content I assume remain with the creator. Sounds like a win win for publishers but like I say; storm in a tea cup.
People already agreed to have their content redistributed when they offered RSS feeds! Apple's email was purely for courtesy.
Although poorly executed, I think what Apple was going for was a "notice" saying:
"hey, we're going to subscribe to your public RSS feed and re-broadcast your content, without modification to content or advertising. Change your RSS feed to <XML Language here> if you want to disallow us from doing this. Here is an FAQ"
"hey, we're going to subscribe to your public RSS feed and re-broadcast your content, without modification to content or advertising. Change your RSS feed to <XML Language here> if you want to disallow us from doing this. Here is an FAQ"
No.
They're just setting an expectation.
"Hi, we're gonna include your publicly posted content in our app, reply to this if you don't want us to" .......INCREASE YOUR REACH (the last bit is my words, but come on, that's what's gonna happen) ;-) ;-)
This.
They still get 100% of the revenue from their ads and make 70% of the revenue from iAds too. It's not like Apple is using their content and keeping all of the revenue. And RSS feeds are publicly available to anyone, what is the issue?
This truly is the whiny bitch generation.
Edit - I just read Mike's blog post. I've never before read a more contradictory rant. Ever.
Edit - I just read Mike's blog post. I've never before read a more contradictory rant. Ever.
Color me not upset. I want my context to be replicated globally. It drives more people to my work. Thank you Apple. I'll leverage that monetarily with any means possible.
Agreed!
Quick, go outside and pose naked for the apple maps camera van. It's a balls 'opt out' policy. ;-)
Apple have flawless business practice and are incapable of any wrong doing - this has been proven on several occasions, over and over again.
This is fan site; it is imperative that everyone who participates in it spins out any criticism of Apple against the other party.
It's fairly simple. When you post something on your website, you have copyright over that text. Within certain limitations, others can copy that content (e.g. citation), but generally they need the copyright holder's permission to reproduce the content, especially on their own website or service. Just because you can access the text via an RSS feed, does not mean that you are allowed to do this. They may offer the RSS feed for personal use only to their subscribers (some RSS feeds even have ads within them or are shortened with a link to the webpage). Apple is doing this for commercial reasons and that requires permission.
Last edited:
Oh thanks.
OR we could just be intellectual beings with minds of our own? Nooooooo that's just preposterous.
At least Apple lets you know. Countless other sites don't ever bother doing so. I see my articles in all kinds of places with others making money off of me. Many don't even link back to you and try to take credit for them in Google's eyes.