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

[mazz0]

I think the far bigger problem with Apple News is that the vast majority of news content on tintermawebs is bloody awful. Basically if I were to filter the content down to that which I consider worth reading, I might as well just have the two or three official apps of the sources I like.

EDIT: And one of those sources is paywalled, so won't be in News anyway!

 

[Creek0512]

I opt-out.

See, I literally just mimicked the steps necessary to opt-out. Click reply, type "I opt-out.", done. Way, way easier than rage blogging about nonsense. Has any other RSS news organizer ever even offered publishers the option of opting out? I wonder if we will see an Apple Pay/NFC style backlash where bloggers disable RSS because it's suddenly just the worst now that Apple is using it.

 

[TruthWatcher412]

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.

But in this case at least, they do get credit and make the majority of profit on any ads:

Advertising Opportunities
Monetization of Apple News Format content is made simple with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Keep 100% of the revenue from the ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. For more information, seeMonetizing News Content.

 

[darcyf]

I'm confused.

In general, I don't get the advantage to giving your content away via RSS. If the idea is that it could drive new readers to your site... don't most RSS users tend to favour their RSS reader, anyway? So how is that supposed to translate into site visits? Unless you can monetize the feed somehow, like some sites do with weekly feed sponsors getting their own little post.

In which case, how would Apple handle that? Are they going to run posts that are essentially just ads for the feed in their News app?

And so now Apple is building an RSS reader app that should attract millions, with an experience that should keep them glued to the app and not wanting to visit the actual sites the content originates from... and they want to monetize this RSS fed content for themselves... so wouldn't that eventually just kill the content that their app relies on by cutting off revenue from the creators?

I'm missing something here, obviously. Can anyone fill me in?

 

[flyinmac]

Agree with others, it is a publicly available RSS feed so f**k off. They should be thrilled Apple is including them in the app at all, thereby driving clicks to their websites. Talk about biting the hand.

There is a big detail that is being missed here.

A blogger or news site may have limited license to the content they are quoting or using. For example, their contract may state that they may publish said content only directly from their servers and may not sub license or permit others to redistribute said content.

Aside from that, they have a legal right to only permit distribution of said content in manners which they explicitly have permitted. Use of content until someone opts out is not explicit permission.

And, for those who say RSS is public, so is most of the information on the Internet.

Consider Apple's refusal to permit particular websites or venues to play their freely available and publicly distributed videos from their website....

Or, let's go a step further, let's take a PC World or Mac World magazine article (from website) and republish the somewhere else without explicit consent and say we have every right to do so because they failed to opt out. You better have a few million dollars in your pocket to bail yourself out of the lawsuit.

 

[aloshka]

You know, maybe I'm just noticing now, but I used to think Apple was non-evil. But with all these new news (monster being dropped out of an open standard because they are suing Beats), standard bullying etc, I'm starting to change my mind.

Also the "just works" doesn't just work anymore and bugginess galore and now the quality has gone bad too. After about 5 overpriced thunderbolt displays only 1 did not have dead pixels, or dust behind the glass (lots of dust, think like huge chunks of what appears to be even hair), or flickering issues. I'm not even that picky, neither is my wife, but when she saw these.. the words wtf is wrong with your monitor came up.

I just don't remember my iPhone 4 not rotating the screen from landscaping, or always rotating it every time I launch an app. I don't remember crashes, lock ups. I don't remember many security issues that are now being discovered daily (mostly because apple is finally appearing on hackers' radars).

So was this always the case or something new?

 

[KALLT]

But in this case at least, they do get credit and make the majority of profit on any ads:

Advertising Opportunities
Monetization of Apple News Format content is made simple with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Keep 100% of the revenue from the ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. For more information, seeMonetizing News Content.

So? Maybe you want to keep 100%? Who is to say that everyone wants to accept this deal? When you put your own app on the App Store, you are not required to share your advertising revenue either, unless it's through iAd.

 

[samcraig]

My question - is the news app going to be a "fixed" app (IE - part of iOS and not removable?). If so, then I can see why some publishers might take issue with it.

Also - to answer at least one earlier poster - it's ridiculous to assume publishers are going to see/read any email - even from Apple. And yes, if Apple is going to engage in this (re)publishing method via their own app, then it's not unreasonable for content creators to WANT to have the option it opt in vs opt out.

 

[LordQ]

Why are they bitching? They want to appear and they'd beg to appear if this was invite-only.

 

[iansilv]

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.

Actually no. The language states that if the publisher is sending out content on their RSS FEEDS that they are not legally allowed to do, they agree to indemnify Apple. Publishers should not be publishing content they do not have the right to publish in the first place.

 

[Arndroid]

Even in 2015 my amazement never ceases over publishers still not understanding what an RSS Feed is.

 

[Arndroid]

i smell a lawsuit

Publishers going to sue themselves for not knowing what an RSS feed is?

 

[TMRJIJ]

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?

Would you rather Apple not tell them at all? I'm pretty sure other RSS reader apps have been doing the same thing without notification.
They're not charging for it. They aren't reproducing content that's behind paywalls. Your example is not very clear.

 

[mfvisuals]

The RSS feeds that Apple will be using to add content to Apple News is the same RSS feed that I, a regular guy, can parse and add into my own app right?

Exactly. Apple is just letting publishers know as a courtesy to them.

The sheer thought that Apple should be criticized/ held responsible for people not reading their emails is laughable. Moving on.

Agreed. I actually admire this brute force approach, especially considering how slow news publishers have been with acclimating their distribution to the digital world we now live in.

Yeah, so with this I definitely will choose to not make use of this feature. I'll stick with going to USA Today and CNN apps as well as all my local news outlets. I wish we could opt out of the presence of this app.

I hope and pray this is a sarcastic comment. You've just cited two of the most biased news services in existence as your alternative to using an app that will allow you more discretion over what news comes your way.

Isn't that what rss is for? Why provide such a feed if you don't want anyone to use it? And didn't Flipboard do the exact same thing years ago?

According to the following article, they do something that is arguably worse:

http://gizmodo.com/5594176/is-flipboard-legal

 

[WilliamLondon]

I must be missing something here. If the authors can simply OPT OUT then what exactly is the problem? Are people just looking for anything about Apple to argue over?

Yep, and the trolls on this site are (giddily) incensed with Apple, as per usual. Sigh.

 

[Arndroid]

Isn't that what rss is for? Why provide such a feed if you don't want anyone to use it? And didn't Flipboard do the exact same thing years ago? I'm just guessing here, please correct me if I'm wrong.

I'd be more annoyed if I was Flipboard, who seem to have been Sherlocked...

This is the bottom line. Those who don't want their RSS feeds to be used as intended simply need to stop publishing them.

 

[bushido]

isnt this the same reason why Google News is no longer allowed to rss news of certain sites in certain EU countries?

Google and other search engines and news aggregators would now have to pay a license fee to the publishers, if they listed more of an article than "single words and smallest excerpts", the law stated.

 

[samcraig]

Actually no. The language states that if the publisher is sending out content on their RSS FEEDS that they are not legally allowed to do, they agree to indemnify Apple. Publishers should not be publishing content they do not have the right to publish in the first place.

At the same time - it's possible they have the right to republish/distribute content but that 3rd parties do not. So offering an RSS feed doesn't mean that whoever gets that feed has a right to republish.

 

[lazard]

But in this case at least, they do get credit and make the majority of profit on any ads:

Advertising Opportunities
Monetization of Apple News Format content is made simple with iAd, Apple’s advertising platform. Keep 100% of the revenue from the ads you sell, and 70% when iAd sells ads for you. For more information, seeMonetizing News Content.

That's only if you include any ads in your article or if you use iAd to place ads. In the Apple email, they're placing ads next to the article without compensation to the publisher.

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.

 

[ginkobiloba]

You're missing the point.

Being included into Apple's RSS app IS NOT THE REASON why he is upset !

This is whay he is upset :
"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."

Do you see ? Basically , Apple sends you an email. If you don't respond NO to the email ( or you miss it, or never read it ), they will publish your blog in their app without you even knowing, and someone could sue you AND Apple because he doesn't like something about your blog that got published in Apple News, and you have to PAY Apple's lawyers fees !

In other words , this is what Apple is saying : "Hi, if you dont respond NO to this email, we will include your blog into our App, and you will have to indemnify Apple if someone sue us because of something you wrote. Have a nice day"

I tink that is plain insane, and will not hold in any court of justice in the world.

 

[aloshka]

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.

I think the issue is that instead of linking to the article where content creators are paid for ads, etc (basically how they are paid), Apple just takes the content. Also Apple says they can modify it

 

[kramerdude]

Actually no. The language states that if the publisher is sending out content on their RSS FEEDS that they are not legally allowed to do, they agree to indemnify Apple. Publishers should not be publishing content they do not have the right to publish in the first place.

Agreed. But the publisher has no problem providing the feeds. Only with being forced to pay Apples high-dollar attorneys like it or not. Again, if Apple and the publisher gets sued, the publisher takes on all costs - IF THEY AGREE - which according to Apple, you are, even if you never got the email. In court, Apple is a big target. Much more so, than an independent publisher.

 

[Analog Kid]

Reading Ash's post, I see a bit more of his point. He understands that RSS is meant to be shared-- mostly he doesn't like that Apple stuffed an indemnity clause in his inbox.

I get Apple's purpose-- they have deep pockets so any suit involving content will almost certainly want to include Apple as a defendant even if their relationship is tenuous at best. I think they're safe for the same reason that most ISPs aren't responsible for content that travels through their network-- without special circumstances Apple probably can't be held liable for simply transmitting the information provided by another source.

The email is probably an attempt by the lawyers to put that in writing though.

Truth is, that clause is almost certainly unenforceable as distributed for all the reasons Ash lays out. An unsigned contract isn't valid.

Ash muddied the waters a bit further though: he's saying the clause isn't valid because you can't prove he's seen it in a blog post admitting he's seen it. He then tries to split the terms, saying he wants to participate in Apple news while refusing to consent to the terms in a post that he can't confirm Apple has read.

I doubt there will be a court case out of any of this, but if there is I think Ash just gave leverage to Apple.

 

[aloshka]

Agree with others, it is a publicly available RSS feed so f**k off. They should be thrilled Apple is including them in the app at all, thereby driving clicks to their websites. Talk about biting the hand.

How would reading the entire article on Apple drive clicks?

 

[Toltepeceno]

This is the bottom line. Those who don't want their RSS feeds to be used as intended simply need to stop publishing them.

People are missing the point. Apple may not be using the feeds as intended, they will be redistributing them. They may be intended for personal use.

Itunes radio, not sure if this is the correct name, is free to use. Do you really think that would make it legal for me to re distribute it with my own ads? IF not then why not?

Forbes terms of use

3. RESTRICTIONS. Except as expressly set forth in Section 1 and/or unless otherwise consented to by FORBES.COM, you may not, directly or indirectly: (a) sell, modify, translate, copy, publish, transmit, distribute or otherwise disseminate the Service or any portion thereof; or delete or fail to display any promotional taglines included in the Service; (b) rent, lease, or otherwise transfer rights to the Service; (c) display the name, logo, trademark or other identifier of another person (except for FORBES.COM or you) on your Site in such a manner as to give the viewer the impression that such other person is a publisher or distributor of the Service on the Site;

http://www.forbes.com/fdc/rssTerms.html

Washington Post

5. Copyright

The Services (including, but not limited to, text, photographs, graphics, video, audio content, and computer code) are protected by copyright as collective works or compilation under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. All individual articles, photographs, graphics, video, audio, and other content or elements comprising the Services are also copyrighted works. All copyrights in the Services are owned by us or by our third-party licensors to the extent permitted under the United States Copyright Act and all international copyright laws. Except for content that you have posted on the Services, or unless expressly authorized by The Washington Post in writing, you are prohibited from publishing, reproducing, distributing, publishing, entering into a database, displaying, performing, modifying, creating derivative works, transmitting, or in any way exploiting any part of the Services, except that you may make use of the content for your own personal use as follows: you may make one machine readable copy and/or print copy that is limited to occasional articles of personal interest only. To obtain written consent to use a copyrighted work, please see our Reprints & Permissions section.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/terms-of-service/2011/11/18/gIQAldiYiN_story.html

Does anyone REALLY think most, if not all, places with rss feeds do not have the same terms of service? Why are people here so quick to rush and defend a rich company without even researching this stuff?