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
Exactly. As you put it, you can't just have legalese on your site somewhere and proclaim it so. I might read it, I might not read it, I might read it and just proclaim to myself in my own domain "No, I won't do that." Unless they enforce an agreement of the terms before allowing access to the RSS feed, its just a bunch of legalese hot air that won't mean anything. But, the same can be said about this email Apple is sending out -- especially how they will seek compensation for law suits if the content they aggregate from your RSS causes them to be sued. Thats funny.
I never said they can't allow it to be reproduced, of course they can. Apple's opt out emails would not fly though.
Sometimes yes, sometimes no.
https://www.eff.org/wp/clicks-bind-ways-users-agree-online-terms-service
Thank you, finally someone who is not completely Apple-brainwashed! Even though the technology behind RSS makes it possible to redistribute feeds that says nothing about the content! Content publishers own their content, period. You are in now way allowed to redistribute that, ever heard about that thing called copyright? The possibility for you, as an induhvidual to subscribe to a RSS feed, does in no way give a multinational corporation right to republish that content without permission.
Let's see... Apple publishes their news as an RSS feed. What do you guys think happens if I republish that feed on my site, with ads "next to" their content? Of course I'll send Apple an email notifying them that I will do so, and that they can opt-out if they don't want me to.
I bet I'm in for a world of hurt in the courts...
The restrictions you have quoted from have to do with ripping off content and calling it your own. This is not that.
Anything from what I see.
Initial agreement, changing something without informing, putting ads etc.etc.
I see/have no problem with Apple's news app simply coming with a collection of "default" RSS feeds, since they are publicly available and that's what they're for. But there's no way that the news companies can/should be bound by any terms that Apple throws at one of the company's email addresses.
Copyright law still apply.
"
Therefore, RSS feeds are difficult to regulate. As a general rule, reusing someone else‚s content is prohibited, because copyright lawsattach to feeds. As a writer, when I compose words that will eventually be published on the internet, someone owns the right to those words. In most cases, it is the publisher since I get paid to contribute content. For personal websites or blogs, the author owns the rights. Unless you specifically give license to another site for your content, it cannot be replicated.
Does that mean that when you put the entire content of an article in an RSS feed that it cannot be republished? Technically, yes. Sending out text through a feed does not renounce your rights to the article. That doesn‚t mean that someone won‚t redistribute it for their own profit."
http://webdesign.about.com/od/rss/a/rss-and-copyright.htm
Yeah, and in the mean time, they also mess with thousands of other news aggregators/readers.
Sure they can. Apple didn't even have to send out an email because the RSS feeds are public. They did so out of courtesy. Maybe it could have been handled better but this is a non-issue. If publishers embed ads into their feeds (I do on one of my websites) then they will get ad revenue hits from Apple's inclusion of their feed, which could be a huge revenue stream. Apple could show other ads to the side but a lot of sites/companies do that already. I used a free RSS app that adds its own ads at the bottom of content. It's no big deal.
They shouldn't be putting content in their RSS feed they don't have the right to distribute. This is one of the reasons apple puts the legal onus back on publishers, because clearly publishers are dumb.
Wrong.
The Copyright Debate & RSS
RSS is commonly defined as really simple syndication. So, this means that any material contained in a feed is available for syndication, right? Well no, not exactly. It means that the content contained in an RSS feed is in a format that is syndication friendly, if the copyright holder allows for syndication. Offering a feed for syndication does not in fact grant any legal rights to anyone to reuse the feeds content beyond what the Copyright laws grant as Fair Use.
http://www.feedforall.com/rss-copyright-debate.htm
What Is Fair Use?
In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an illegal infringement.
Last edited:
It's only news because it's Apple. Other news aggregators like flipboard don't even bother contacting the source, they just do it.
That's a fair point but it happens all over the web. Publishers can simply include inline ads in their feeds (most do already) so they don't lose money. Apple might earn some money by bringing readers to the publishers (we don't know if they will for sure) but this has the potential to bring a lot of readers and money to publishers. Yes, it could have been handled better but it's pretty standard practice regarding RSS feeds. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just pointing out that this is how RSS feeds are handled.
Understandable someone would have their nose out of joint over this, Apple should have done this much differently.
On another note, I hope that the News app does filter out all of the BS advertising that most news/blog websites have.
On another note, I hope that the News app does filter out all of the BS advertising that most news/blog websites have.
You do realise you would need to join apples iAd advertising platform. Think it through what is happening here.
So instead of people being taken to the site, and money being generated in form of ads on those sites, apple will not send the traffic through, have thier ads via they iAds platform and invite you to move thier business to them. If Google did this there would also be an outcry.
Can I just make it clear, Apple is offering to take 30% of ad revenue for using your content. Medium to small publishers will not do the sale of ads I house to benefit from the 100%
...RSS feeds are public. What's next, website owners being upset that Safari can access their websites unless they opt out?
Of course they are. RSS feeds are implemented to drive traffic to your site. Did you think they were there to make sure people did not come to your site , thus removing traffic on the poor severs and making sure you made no ads revenue ?
Also what might be shocking, Social media like Facebook and tweeter, while providing free content, want to drive the users to their websites
I'm not ignoring the copyright issues and I'm not necessarily wrong - you're also not necessarily wrong. It's not a simple issue and there are not clear legal rulings (in the U.S.) regarding the manner (there is a ruling in Israel that would seem to support Apple's actions [in Israel]: http://www.jpost.com/National-News/Posting-RSS-feed-items-not-copyright-infringement).
Here's an example from about 4 years ago but about a paid RSS reader (which News isn't exactly [if you have an iOS device]): http://www.dmlp.org/blog/2010/new-y...g-all-paid-rss-readers-infringe-its-copyright
It's a gray area of copyright law with legal experts arguing for both sides. Right now, the bulk of opinion (expert) is in Apple's favor, like it or not.
And as a publisher. How do I make money out of this to continue making more content and paying wages?