Sidebar Sidebar
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

2010mini said:
Aren't RSS feeds public? Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...

Websites are also public. Putting something on the web does not make it public domain. You still own it as copyright. There is no distinction whatsoever between an article posted on a blog and an RSS feed of that same blog. Both are subject to copyright. Many websites allow users to read their articles for free, even provide RSS feeds for their convenience. That doesn't mean that they agree with other websites scraping their content and putting ads next to it.

MikePLP said:
It's only news because it's Apple. Other news aggregators like flipboard don't even bother contacting the source, they just do it.
Click to expand...

I doubt they do that. You can't even add your own sources to Flipboard, last time I checked. They will likely have some agreements with the content providers. And why not? Apple is painfully bitchy when it comes to their rights, whether patents or copyright. The other day they sent a cease-and-desist letter to a semi-public viewing of the keynote, also citing copyright for something they offer completely for free on the web. There was a general consensus here on Macrumors that Apple was allowed to do this.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, Avalontor and SlCKB0Y
Anyone can access RSS feeds right? Apple is basically saying that they are going to go ahead and deliver the provider's content to untold millions for free? How exactly is this hurting the news providers?
 
Apple probably has enough rights under the standard RSS scheme to be able to reproduce the feed.

But it will hit a big brick wall if it tries an indemnification effort. IANAL but I believe that requires a signed contract. A "failure to respond" clearly does not meet that threshold.
 
KALLT said:
Websites are also public. Putting something on the web does not make it public domain. You still own it as copyright. There is no distinction whatsoever between an article posted on a blog and an RSS feed of that same blog. Both are subject to copyright. Many websites allow users to read their articles for free, even provide RSS feeds for their convenience. That doesn't mean that they agree with other websites scraping their content and putting ads next to it.
Click to expand...
True - they own the copyright. But my understanding is that the terms of providing the RSS feed typically authorize re-use. I guess they could choose not to but that would rather defeat the whole point of syndication, wouldn't it?
 
macpt said:
What is Apple thinking, stealing content from the authors, owners and rights holders to monetize it? Did Apple turn into a full blown pirate nowadays ?!
Click to expand...

They were thinking they were going to do the same thing every other news aggregator does, only one better because they were actually going to attribute things to the content owner, unlike Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.

It's already been said in the thread, but the problem is the indemnification clause.
 
vpndev said:
True - they own the copyright. But my understanding is that the terms of providing the RSS feed typically authorize re-use. I guess they could choose not to but that would rather defeat the whole point of syndication, wouldn't it?
Click to expand...

No, they don't. You can assume everything if you don't check the terms of use. At best this constitutes fair use in the absence of explicit permission which still excludes commercial purposes such as Apple News. The point of syndication is manifold. Some may only want to offer it so that their users can read articles on an individual basis. That doesn't mean that they intend to give scrapers a free licence to do whatever they please with the content. That's just not how this works. I get the distinct feeling that some people really have a warped definition of public domain.
 
kcirtap00 said:
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.
Click to expand...

No, a published article and it's graphical content is the property of a newspaper, just like your drawings are your property.
Ignorance is still ignorance even if you say EULA pretending to be smart.
Bad try, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SlCKB0Y and macpt
posguy99 said:
They were thinking they were going to do the same thing every other news aggregator does, only one better because they were actually going to attribute things to the content owner, unlike Engadget, Gizmodo, etc.

It's already been said in the thread, but the problem is the indemnification clause.
Click to expand...

You're pretty much wrong, those websites host their own original content as their main news. AFAIK they don't even aggregate anything, don't know why you brought them up.

Apple is taking copyrighted works into its hands, publishing them without a license, and to add insult to injury is monetizing them from iAds and keeping 100% of the rights holders ad profits to themselves ?! Unbelievable...that's piracy in my book.
Don't mistake a corporation profiting from republishing a 3rd party's work without the 3rd party consent or license, and compare them to yourself reading articles on your browser, the end user. It's just not the same thing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost, SlCKB0Y and Luis Mazza
KALLT said:
Why would they go to that website when they have Apple News? The point of News is to not go to websites anymore.
Click to expand...

You find it impossible that the feeds would include external links to lure people to the website? I've been on the internet for a while, this seems obvious to me.
 
Colino said:
The sheer thought that Apple should be criticized/ held responsible for people not reading their emails is laughable. Moving on.
Click to expand...

Not at all when it is a "reply or you're opted in" email.

The whole point of an UNODIR is to pull one over on you. Unless otherwise directed I will . . .

Send it out and hope no one notices and tells you no.

Then you can say well I told you a month ago via email I was taking your wife and Mercedes . . .What's the problem? Don't read your emails?

OPT in for a new service with an announcement via email is a problem. Not laughable at all.

I PM'd you, I hope you read it in the next 30 seconds or I will take that as a yes to take the items listed in the PM. . . you do read your PM's right? (j/k in case the joke is lost on you).
 
phillipduran said:
Not at all when it is a "reply or you're opted in" email.

The whole point of an UNODIR is to pull one over on you. Unless otherwise directed I will . . .

Send it out and hope no one notices and tells you no.

Then you can say well I told you a month ago via email I was taking your wife and Mercedes . . .What's the problem? Don't read your emails?

OPT in for a new service with an announcement via email is a problem. Not laughable at all.

I PM'd you, I hope you read it in the next 30 seconds or I will take that as a yes to take the items listed in the PM. . . you do read your PM's right? (j/k in case the joke is lost on you).
Click to expand...

Except they're not taking anything away from them by directing millions of new eyes to their websites.
 
Trius said:
You find it impossible that the feeds would include external links to lure people to the website? I've been on the internet for a while, this seems obvious to me.
Click to expand...

No, I never said that it was impossible, but it seems far more likely to me that Apple wants users to stay within the News app. Why spend so much time on markup and all, when they just show snippets with a link?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Benjamin Frost
Typical case of don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Especially when it's written by a blogger.

Only people who don't know how the RSS feeds work are agreeing with the blogger who would have complained if Apple did or didn't send an email.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ohio.emt
Tsuius said:
Typical case of don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Especially when it's written by a blogger.

Only people who don't know how the RSS feeds work are agreeing with the blogger who would have complained if Apple did or didn't send an email.
Click to expand...
His post is worth a read. He very explicitly isn't complaining about Apple using his feed, he's complaining that they've tried to set up an opt-out mechanism for legal indemnity.

As I've posted earlier-- I don't think this is a big deal, but it's another great example of how simple things can get quite messy in a world where the internet makes sharing so easy.
 
I got to page 2 and there seems to be a lot of confusion as to why publishers may be annoyed at this very ambiguous email.

Yes they put the feeds up. They know this.

Yep similar to google reader, it indexes them and makes it available.
But google never sent out an email telling publishers they were agreeing to random arbitrary terms in return for their content getting indexed.

Especially when the wording of such terms indicate that the publisher may have to pay apple in the result of a legal claim against apple and the publisher should a situation ever arise.
That's the key difference that many seem to be missing and would understandably have publishers a bit miffed or confused!
Apple seems to be the only indexing service applying terms to the publisher for having their content indexed by a service.

I believe that the email was written by someone in legal and it's likely just not presented in the most understandable way. They're probably not saying "if we both get sued then you'll have to pay Apple" even though that's how the email reads.

I'm no expert on US contract law, but an agreement such as this one taken literally wouldn't be enforceable in any western court I would imagine!

Otherwise (as I hope someone between page 3 and now pointed out!) I could send each one of you a PM saying "I'm launching a new web scraping service that will look at all of your MacRumors Forum profile pages and index your personal website listed within it. I will link to your personal website on my new app.
Every time the link to your website gets clicked on my app, you agree to pay me £100 unless you opt out by replying no to this PM".

Or "if you put pornographic imagery on your profile page and a lawsuit/claim arises naming both of us as parties, I will look to reclaim all of my legal costs from you. I will use some of the best and most expensive lawyers in the US, and you will have to indemnify all of my legal fees".

An exaggerated example I know and not enforceable but is similar to how Apple's email when read literally, which is why I think Apple's email is not worded in the best possible way and has caused confusion and a lot of hot hair.

On another note though:
Tsuius said:
Typical case of don't believe everything you read on the Internet. Especially when it's written by a blogger
Click to expand...
The email also got sent to big publications such as BBC News, WSJ and many others which I wouldn't personally categorize as "bloggers" for their main news content....
 
  • Like
Reactions: mscuthbert and Benjamin Frost
KALLT said:
No, I never said that it was impossible, but it seems far more likely to me that Apple wants users to stay within the News app. Why spend so much time on markup and all, when they just show snippets with a link?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I understand your logic here. This is like complaining that Google shouldn't show snippets of your webpage on a search because it takes away from people going to your website. The fact is, people wouldn't even know about your website if they hadn't seen it by going through Google. I don't frequent many news sites, but I will use the News app. I GUARANTEE YOU, I will end up frequenting some new news site due to it's exposure I experience on Apple's News app. I also can guarantee you that I'm not the only one and I'm not in the minority. People complaining are not looking at the big picture. There are plenty of people and the news sites will only benefit from this exposure.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back