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

[MH01]

Put revenue generating ads in your RSS feed.

I doubt iAds will show these for that to work, you would need to joint the iAds platform.

 

[lchlch]

I doubt iAds will show these for that to work, you would need to joint the iAds platform.

They have to publish your ads along with your content because they are not authorized to change it. This is the same for virtually every single RSS reader on the planet.

 

[MH01]

You are correct to assume that most authors do not put a link at the bottom of their article. However it is typical for an RSS feed to include a link. The link will often be created by computer programs automatically; added to the article: and than published to an RSS feed.

But the issue at hand is not the RSS feeds. It is the indemnity clause. I think the clause is reasonable. If Apple got sued over your content it is reasonable for you to take part of the responsibility; in this case to indemnify apple.

I'm fine with that. The way apple went about sending and email with an opt out, is the issue for me. Hate to relieve a lawsuit, and be told I agreed due to an email I did not read for whatever reason.

 

[aslucher24]

Do you have an email address ?
Because i'm going to send you one saying that, unless you respond NO to my email, you're legally bound to send me 4000 dollars each month.

Are you serious? That is not even close to being the same. ITS A PUBLIC FEED. READ A BOOK

Apple is using a public feed. End of statement. There is nothing illegal at play. Look up Rockmelt or any other aggregator that used to be, it's not wrong. It's what RSS feeds were designed to do. If the content creators don't like how they will be used, then they simply can cease the feed.

Stop with erroneous "what if..." statements. You clearly don't know what you're talking about.

 

[MH01]

They have to publish your ads along with your content because they are not authorized to change it. This is the same for virtually every single RSS reader on the planet.

What is your definition of ads that are published? Do you mean physical assets on your site, or ads pulled in through 3rd party systems like DFP, iAds etc?

It's okay, just googled it. I see there are ads services for feeds. Be interesting how apple deals with this

 

[rols]

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.

Exactly - there's the issue with this whole thing, it's not that Apple is using a public RSS feed which they mostly could do, it's that they purport to add terms to the publisher, including indemnifying them against lawsuits, by sending an email just saying so.

I don't believe that method of opt-out-liability stands up to a court of law, which makes it strange Apple would even try anything so overarching, but you want to be the guy who's RSS feed was used, you never saw the mail or didn't read it or replied and Apple didn't read it and now you're defending yourself against Apple?

Sending out mails to the content creator saying they are going to use your content, or may, and telling you they may put it next to advertising, telling you where to see your content, reminding you occasionally they are doing it, all fine. Attempting to impose legal liability in this ass-backwards manner, dick move.

 

[Trius]

Radio is a good example of giving an artist exposure . Maybe a good analogy to the news apps?

Though if you were and artist, would it worry you if the radio station made money playing your song from ads before and after , and you got nothing? And also of the station played your song, and got sued, you would be liable?

I see your point here, but isn't this kind of what happens now? Exposure is the trade-off. Sure I could get all upset focusing on the radio station's business model... Or I could view it as fan building exposure, and focus on my own business model that monetizes my product, all while taking advantage of the humongous user base that I didn't have to curate.

 

[MH01]

Exactly - there's the issue with this whole thing, it's not that Apple is using a public RSS feed which they mostly could do, it's that they purport to add terms to the publisher, including indemnifying them against lawsuits, by sending an email just saying so.

I don't believe that method of opt-out-liability stands up to a court of law, which makes it strange Apple would even try anything so overarching, but you want to be the guy who's RSS feed was used, you never saw the mail or didn't read it or replied and Apple didn't read it and now you're defending yourself against Apple?

Sending out mails to the content creator saying they are going to use your content, or may, and telling you they may put it next to advertising, telling you where to see your content, reminding you occasionally they are doing it, all fine. Attempting to impose legal liability in this ass-backwards manner, dick move.

Be interesting what happens in the scenario where the content is considered offensive due to the ad that is served with it.

http://verticalsearchworks.tumblr.c...3-of-the-most-horrifying-ad-targeting-mishaps

 

[lchlch]

Exactly - there's the issue with this whole thing, it's not that Apple is using a public RSS feed which they mostly could do, it's that they purport to add terms to the publisher, including indemnifying them against lawsuits, by sending an email just saying so.

I don't believe that method of opt-out-liability stands up to a court of law, which makes it strange Apple would even try anything so overarching, but you want to be the guy who's RSS feed was used, you never saw the mail or didn't read it or replied and Apple didn't read it and now you're defending yourself against Apple?

Sending out mails to the content creator saying they are going to use your content, or may, and telling you they may put it next to advertising, telling you where to see your content, reminding you occasionally they are doing it, all fine. Attempting to impose legal liability in this ass-backwards manner, dick move.

You are not defending yourself against Apple. You are indemnifying Apple for the damages and cost incurred by them in defense of your actions.

If you are opening up yourself to legal action you would be sued regardless if Apple is distributing your RSS feeds or not.

So isn't it reasonable for you to indemnify them?

 

[0000757]

I was actually looking forward to the News app, figures it screws content creators

oh well, back to RSS feeds for me

That's hilarious. Nice try Apple.

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.

You realize this is what Flipboard does? Digg? All the similar?

 

[MH01]

I see your point here, but isn't this kind of what happens now? Exposure is the trade-off. Sure I could get all upset focusing on the radio station's business model... Or I could view it as fan building exposure, and focus on my own business model that monetizes my product, all while taking advantage of the humongous user base that I didn't have to curate.

Actually I got off topic , and not a good example. The issue here is he opt out process. Apple is doing nothing wrong here, just like the rest of the industry does it. They just balls upped the process by which you "agree" to the terms.

Your point ins actually correct. I side tracked it, my bad

 

[Bigsk8r]

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.

Exactly. I can see being mildly ticked at some middle managers choice of how the message came out, but come on. ISIS could subscribe to the feed and have it on a page next to Infidel Kittens being beheaded.

Good grief... let's just keep the butthurt going...

 

[Rigby]

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.

I fail to see the difference. They are using other peoples content to attract readers to their page where they show ads. Sounds like monetization to me.

 

[jamescobalt]

I feel like publishers don't understand what RSS feeds are for.

 

[Rigby]

I don't think they're asking for rights are they?

I didn't say they did. I was responding to the poster who said content in an RSS feed was "public domain".

They're 'including' it in an aggregated app designed to optimize the contents delivery to those that fit the target audience.

And they are apparently planning to place ads near the content. They might also divert page views from the original page, which may reduce the publisher's revenue.

People use RSS feeds in different ways. Some only put headlines on the feed with the intention that an interested reader is linked to the original page. Others make complete articles available via RSS to make life easier for the reader. There are various different business models and value propositions. Apple cannot just assume that publishers are willing to license content to Apple just because they have an RSS feed.

But as someone said, assuming rights just by sending an email would never hold up in court anyway. Nice try though.

 

[Rigby]

And RSS feeds are publicly available to anyone, what is the issue?

This is a weird argument. Web pages are publicly available to anyone too. That doesn't mean that Apple can just scrape the content and offer it in their own app without the publisher's agreement. Going further, you could also claim that text in a printed book is publicly available to anyone ...

 

[rols]

You are not defending yourself against Apple. You are indemnifying Apple for the damages and cost incurred by them in defense of your actions.

If you are opening up yourself to legal action you would be sued regardless if Apple is distributing your RSS feeds or not.

So isn't it reasonable for you to indemnify them?

No it's not, not by default, not by opt-out. If you contract with Apple (or anyone) to supply content for their aggregated feed it is would not be unusual for that contract to include some kind of indemnification against legal action. Sending out emails with opt out clauses however is not how contracts are made.

If you publish something and a 3rd party decides to aggregate or republish it, let's assume your original feed allows this, they accept some risk that if you publish something actionable then you're both liable to get sued. As the original publisher you already bear the greatest responsibility for what's published, but the aggregator is also a publisher and there's responsibility/liability there. Apple, or whoever, could mitigate by showing for instance they did everything possible not to republish actionable content, took it down as soon as they were made aware, etc. However, if you are going to republish other people's content you are accepting some risk that content is actionable.

You can see Apple might wish to have each content producer they aggregate to agree to indemnify them against this, but just sending out mails saying 'you accept liability unless you reply' isn't how you do that.

 

[Arndroid]

I'm fine with that. The way apple went about sending and email with an opt out, is the issue for me. Hate to relieve a lawsuit, and be told I agreed due to an email I did not read for whatever reason.

Your liability would have nothing to do with apple and everything with you rebroadcasting content you were not illegally allowed to do so. Your liability would be the same with or without apple.

 

[Arndroid]

What is your definition of ads that are published? Do you mean physical assets on your site, or ads pulled in through 3rd party systems like DFP, iAds etc?

It's okay, just googled it. I see there are ads services for feeds. Be interesting how apple deals with this

They have to publish the feeds including the ads. RSS has only been around since 1999 people. All this stuff has been hashed out.

This all boils down to apple going above and beyond what they needed to do and taking crap for it from people who don't even know how their own websites work.

 

[a.gomez]

9 pages of people trying to justify another Apple stupidity. Value by association is a very powerful thing.

 

[Arndroid]

Exactly - there's the issue with this whole thing, it's not that Apple is using a public RSS feed which they mostly could do, it's that they purport to add terms to the publisher, including indemnifying them against lawsuits, by sending an email just saying so.

I don't believe that method of opt-out-liability stands up to a court of law, which makes it strange Apple would even try anything so overarching, but you want to be the guy who's RSS feed was used, you never saw the mail or didn't read it or replied and Apple didn't read it and now you're defending yourself against Apple?

Sending out mails to the content creator saying they are going to use your content, or may, and telling you they may put it next to advertising, telling you where to see your content, reminding you occasionally they are doing it, all fine. Attempting to impose legal liability in this ass-backwards manner, dick move.

The opt out is not for liability it is for the feeds. The liability mention is just a heads up if you rebroadcast content you don't have the rights for it is on you not us. Again completely unnecessary on apples part but given a huge number of publishers are clueless they could consider it free legal advise.

Apple wasn't going to be on the hook for improperly syndicated content by web publishers in the first place.

Everything in that email was for the benefit of the seemingly overwhelming number of idiot publishers.

We would be better off if the domains were just confiscated from any publisher complaining about this.

 

[Arndroid]

I didn't say they did. I was responding to the poster who said content in an RSS feed was "public domain".
And they are apparently planning to place ads near the content. They might also divert page views from the original page, which may reduce the publisher's revenue.

People use RSS feeds in different ways. Some only put headlines on the feed with the intention that an interested reader is linked to the original page. Others make complete articles available via RSS to make life easier for the reader. There are various different business models and value propositions. Apple cannot just assume that publishers are willing to license content to Apple just because they have an RSS feed.

But as someone said, assuming rights just by sending an email would never hold up in court anyway. Nice try though.

Wrong on all counts

 

[Arndroid]

I'm sure if someone has the time, they will look into the T&Cs of this service and see if external links are allowed.

Putting constant links in your articles is very poor editorial practice. Any decent news agency has a cms and related content etc

You are talking gibberish. Links are a defacto part of RSS feeds

 

[Studioman]

Apple recently sent a mass email to news publishers to introduce them to Apple News, an upcoming Flipboard-inspired app for iOS 9 that will deliver curated news and magazine stories with custom layouts, photo galleries, videos and animations optimized for iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

The email has ignited some controversy in the news and blogging community over the past week, according to the BBC, which reports that some writers are disappointed about Apple's decision to automatically include a website's RSS feeds in Apple News unless they specifically opt out by replying to the email.Some bloggers argue that not all publishers are guaranteed to see the email, which could easily be overlooked or buried in a spam inbox, leading to their content being featured on Apple News without their knowledge or explicit consent. Apple also has permission to place advertising next to or near a publisher's content without providing any compensation, and will pass on any legal fees to publishers.Apple News is highlighted as one of the main features on the iOS 9 preview page, so it is no surprise that Apple is attempting to have as much content available on the platform at launch as possible. It is clear, however, that many publishers would have appreciated the terms of Apple News being set on an opt-in rather than opt-out basis. Apple so far has not commented on those concerns.

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

So, publishers are upset that RSS is being used as it was designed to be used? The other part is they are getting several months to opt-out because it will not be released to the public until the fall. So, what are the complaining about? I bet it was one guy at a paper no one have ever heard of.

 

[malexandria]

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 run a small blog and it's hard to nearly impossible to make money now. It's fine when there are companies that clearly can't afford to pay to use my content, but I'd be really, really, pissed if a big company like Apple came along, stole my work, monetized it and then didn't both to pay me anything and on top of it they send me this letter telling me that I'm opted in and hey, even if I didn't see the email, "Oh, well..." I get over 600 emails a day most of which I don't read and another 500 hundred of junk email that I just automatically trash even if not all of it junk.

The problem is the generally public thinks content has no value, even though it costs money, blood, sweat and tears to produce it. Now these big companies that can afford to pay are coming along saying hey little guy, let us use your content and we'll drive traffic back to your site - but it almost NEVER works because why would someone click a link to go to your site when the entire story is being used and incorporated into some news app? Defeats the whole point of a news app, if it sends the person using it to a million different websites.

Our content is used by some of the biggest websites and Google News, but at least that's stuff I opted in for and they had the decency to ASK first. Apple's arrogance here is UNBELIEVABLE, really.