'Pulse News Reader' for iPad Pulled From App Store After New York Times Complaint

[BobVB]

I think most aren't really understanding the complaint

Most RSS Feeds give just a short highlight of the story, you can then go to the original page, ads and all, to read the entire story.

Pulse is basically doing a 'remote' Safari Reader effect, itself going to the source, extracting just the story, and bringing it back - reformatted - for reading. That undercuts the whole point of putting out RSS Feeds - getting traffic back at your actual site.

Take Early Edition, you click on the 'See Original' button and it takes you to the actual web page. Apple's new Safari 5.0 Reader only extracts the plain story after you have already gone to the actual web page, so it too isn't an infraction.

But cutting out the original page entirely and only displaying part of what is linked to by the RSS Feed, that's a legitimate complaint by the NYT.

Yeah, what Pulse does is cool, but pretty obviously a copyright violation too.

 

[Earendil]

And why does Apple behave like a court? If Pulse is breaching the copyright law then NY should warn them not Apple. If Pulse doesn't listen to NY's warning then NY should go to court not to Apple.

Obviously we know why Apple took of the application . They don't want to get sued by NY. What a awkward system!

[fake lawyer] This was my first thought as soon as I saw the title. I agree completely, Apple should only be policing the store for apps violating their copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc., not anybody else's. NYT should have contacted Pulse; [/fake lawyer]

[yetanotherfakelawyer]
I'm not sure on the specifics of law or the contract devs have with Apple, which is why I'm not a practicing lawyer. However I would guess that the contract a dev has with Apple is not the problem. No one makes any money, nor is the app distributed in a transaction between Dev and Apple. It's only when Apple Distributes and sells the app that it becomes a problem. Apple then gives the Dev a cut of the profit, but it's Apple that is doing the selling and distributing.

This is in contrast to the way a brick and mortar shop works, where they purchase the goods from the manufacturer/developer, and then resell them to the end user. In this case I don't think Apple is considered a reseller.

That said, I'm sure a letter/email/phone call was placed to the developers, and I'm sure the NYT knew that action would be taken faster if they contacted Apple.
[/yetanotherfakelawyer]

 

[Marble]

I've never used it, but from what I'm reading it SOUNDS like they take the information from the RSS and arrange it into what looks like a website.

In other words, not showing a list of articles, but basically making a whole new website using the Time's content.

But I've never seen it. I, too,a would like someone who is familiar with it to explain what REALLY happens to the content when it's displayed. I'm getting this information from the things the Times has written, which is obviously biased.

Anyone know more?



See, that's NOT the way I've been reading it.

I'm hoping someone with direct experience can fill us in.

Pulse is just a news reader like any other with an appealing way of displaying articles. They also offer the ability to view articles as RSS text or as the source html page using a built-in browser.

The issue is with their default feeds including the NYT, I guess.

 

[zaphon]

actually, no it doesn't. helps to READ.

they directly and purposefully violated the terms of use. you think every RSS reader on the planet does that?

go read the story, and see why this isn't like every other RSS reader. then try again.

I did read the story, heck I own the app. Again, it doesn't behave any differently when it comes down to it. Yes they used the NYT's info in the ads (which I didn't look at until this article), and yes they shipped with the NYT RSS feed pre-loaded (which I'm actually pretty sure there are OTHER RSS readers that do the same), but otherwise, again they are just like any other RSS reader.

I guess it all comes down to it being in the details. Clearly they violated some minor detail, which can be easily fixed, remove the NYT from the pre-loaded stuff. Problem solved.

 

[manu chao]

Just because the RSS feed is free doesn't mean that it isn't copyrighted material. NYT is well within its rights to stop someone from profiting off it.

If I made an app that replicated this forum and sold it for 99¢, you can bet the mods/admins would want to have a word with me.

If I made a browser which allowed me to display this forum and charged money for it, macrumors would sent me a nasty letter?
Remember the Dashword web clips which allowed you take any content from any webpage, draw a box around the content and displayed it in Dashboard? That apparently was ok, despite Apple charging money for the OS.
Or all those existing newsreaders which apparently are fine as well.

And this app: http://www.acrylicapps.com/times/ was fine as well.

 

[macsmurf]

I did read the story, heck I own the app. Again, it doesn't behave any differently when it comes down to it. Yes they used the NYT's info in the ads (which I didn't look at until this article), and yes they shipped with the NYT RSS feed pre-loaded (which I'm actually pretty sure there are OTHER RSS readers that do the same), but otherwise, again they are just like any other RSS reader.

I guess it all comes down to it being in the details. Clearly they violated some minor detail, which can be easily fixed, remove the NYT from the pre-loaded stuff. Problem solved.

Could you confirm or debunk this:

Pulse is basically doing a 'remote' Safari Reader effect, itself going to the source, extracting just the story, and bringing it back - reformatted - for reading. That undercuts the whole point of putting out RSS Feeds - getting traffic back at your actual site.

?

 

[notabadname]

+1

Print is dead. Newspapers need to die. Google NYT's circulation over the last 5 years to see the future of newspapers. Note that journalism can and should be detached from newspapers as a medium.

That's like saying books are dead, simply because books are turning to digital distribution. Yes print circulation will eventually disappear. The difference is, books are doing well because of tight control of their copyrighted material. Books never made their content available on the WWW for free dissemination like the press/news media did. At one time, you could not get the content of NYT, Washington Post or USA Today without purchasing the printed material. They will figure out a paid model again were you will pay a reasonable subscription to get the material again, or, like the "old days", you simply wont get it. Plenty of publishers, like Consumer Reports have made the transition, as well as Aviation Week and Space technology and others. The Wall Street Journal also greatly limits their access unless you pay for on-line access or the physical paper, this includes their App.

If you want "detached" journalism, simply look at this site, twitter or Engadget. I will take my News from journalists who have to pass a slightly higher threshold to maintain employment and standards (even for freelance) for major publishers desiring to maintain reputation and credibility.
Keeping track of countless journalists and their credibility is a lot harder than choosing publishers that adhere to your personal standards for journalism. Even if it comes down to Fox versus CNN or NYT versus the Wall Street Journal (personal choices), they all are generally pretty careful about protecting credibility of what they print (or publish digitally). Without them, I think journalism would be more like the countless blogs out there, with no easy way to assign credibility to various "content creators". You would also loose "single source" access to cover a broad spectrum of news and the capital necessary to cover global stories that independent journalists may not be able to afford taking a risk on coverage for.

 

[Small White Car]

Pulse is just a news reader like any other with an appealing way of displaying articles. They also offer the ability to view articles as RSS text or as the source html page using a built-in browser.

The issue is with their default feeds including the NYT, I guess.

When the Times complains about 'Framing,' do you know what they mean by that?

 

[srl7741]

Looks like Pulse is back in the store again

Link

iTunes Link

.

 

[bawbag]

I wish the NY Times put up a decent iPad app instead of the 'Editors choice' and I would probably use that more than reading the RSS feed on pulse

 

[BobVB]

No its not.

Pulse is just a news reader like any other with an appealing way of displaying articles.

Look at the example picture with this entry - there are 'text' & 'html' buttons at the top, they give you a choice of just reading the article without going to the web page - that is the infraction that isn't committed by other RSS Readers. You can't go get more than the RSS Feed 'teaser' for display in the reader. They only send you a line or two in the feed, that's all you have been given license to view without following the link and viewing the web page itself.

They will have to lose the 'Text' button to avoid legitimate complaints from RSS Feed sources.

 

[apfhex]

go read the story, and see why this isn't like every other RSS reader.

Ok. From the story:

Pulse draws from publicly available Times RSS feeds, as do many other apps, and does no scraping.

In fact, Pulse is little more than a really well-designed RSS reader, which is what the Times said it was in its write-up. You add feeds to it and it visualizes them in a way that’s easy to get through.

In the New York Times case, as with others, one view is plain text and only shows whatever the Times puts in its RSS feed, which isn’t much. And its Web view seems to be just an in-app browser that takes you straight to the page that is in the link with the RSS feed.

Pulse is basically doing a 'remote' Safari Reader effect, itself going to the source, extracting just the story, and bringing it back - reformatted - for reading.

Is it, though? That's not at all accurate according to what I've read. It's just like any other RSS reader with a pretty interface.

From what I understand, NYT just has a problem with Pulse including a bookmark to their feed in the app, and maybe using their content in screenshots. It should be really simple to just remove those and update the app.

Look at the example picture with this entry - there are 'text' & 'html' buttons at the top, they give you a choice of just reading the article without going to the web page - that is the infraction that isn't committed by other RSS Readers.

What I see is a "text" view that includes only what the RSS feed provides, and a "web" view that shows the entire NYT website. Is this not accurate? Is Pulse pulling content from websites that isn't a part of the RSS? There seems to be conflicting information here.

 

[ciderbee]

Look at the example picture with this entry - there are 'text' & 'html' buttons at the top, they give you a choice of just reading the article without going to the web page - that is the infraction that isn't committed by other RSS Readers. You can't go get more than the RSS Feed 'teaser' for display in the reader. They only send you a line or two in the feed, that's all you have been given license to view without following the link and viewing the web page itself.

They will have to lose the 'Text' button to avoid legitimate complaints from RSS Feed sources.

Ok, Looking at the app they have already done just what you mention. If your looking at a times article now and select text, then all you get is the RSS feed and not the entire article text. Then if you click (touch) over to Web you see the Times site. That change may be why it is allowed back on the App store.

 

[manu chao]

The only 'new' thing I can see is that Pulse displays content from several webpages side-by-side AND extracts content from webpages.

Outlawing to display content side-by-side is a bit rich (the Top Sites feature in Safari uses it, Opera, which is sold for money uses it).

Well, hot-linking (extracting content) has been around forever but I guess clamped down on wherever practical and wherever it was felt to make somebody else (too much) money. Still Apple was able to use it without punity in its webclip feature:
http://www.apple.com/pro/tips/webclip.html

 

[BobVB]

Is it, though? That's not at all accurate according to what I've read.

OK, you may be right - what they are doing in all their examples and demos is using feeds that send the entirety of the text in the rss feed, giving the illusion they are extracting it from the source.

Might be just such an assumption that was made by the NYT and why it is now back.

(I'd research it first hand but don't want to waste $4 on a look see).

 

[joost538]

the new york times is right on point here. Someone else can not resell your content and repurpose it without your authorization/permission.

If you mean make a copy, then yes. You can't do that. Pulse is not doing that. They are requesting an RSS feed, which is public information, and displaying it via WebKit. This is just a browser. No content is being copied and resold; instead, content is being requested from its source, with all ads included, via completely normal means: a simple web browser.

That's it. Copyright doesn't forbid this.

People saying things like "they publish it and its public, that's the end of their control" are being ignorant.

No, we are not.

I can't take the paper edition of the new york times and go copy it and re sell it, that would be illegal. That is essentially what the people are doing here. The RSS feed of their paper is not intended for someone else to repurpose it and resell it.

This is NOT what Pulse is "essentially" doing. They are asking money for the added value of all your feeds in one place and put in a nice package. They are not asking money for the content; in fact you pay once and then the content is free, as free as the publisher has put it on the internet.

Plain and simple.

Pulse is like the display window that some publishers have, where you can read the paper for free. But then not just one paper, but hundreds of them. That's why the app costs money, the convenience and not the content.

 

[DavidFL]

Was it restored?

I don't get it. I thought the app had been pulled. Just 5 minutes ago I was able to go into the App Store on my iPad, and purchase and download Pulse. I hadn't heard about it before this brouhaha. It seems to be working fine and it does include the NYT feed.

Hm.

 

[macsmurf]

OK, you may be right - what they are doing in all their examples and demos is using feeds that send the entirety of the text in the rss feed, giving the illusion they are extracting it from the source.

Might be just such an assumption that was made by the NYT and why it is now back.

(I'd research it first hand but don't want to waste $4 on a look see).

That's great but you probably should've noted in your comment that you haven't actually used the app.

 

[ciderbee]

OK, you may be right - what they are doing in all their examples and demos is using feeds that send the entirety of the text in the rss feed, giving the illusion they are extracting it from the source.

Might be just such an assumption that was made by the NYT and why it is now back.

(I'd research it first hand but don't want to waste $4 on a look see).

I have to say for an RSS reader I love it, and I just downloaded it. It is totally worth the $4, and I hate to buy apps. The interface just fits the iPad very well. They have some quirks to work out, but I am pretty happy with my purchase.

 

[Nunyabinez]

I also just bought it

Apparently it wasn't down for long and I bought it just because the NYT pissed me off. The NYT is still a default on it, so I can't see that anything changed. Hopefully, someone who actually understands marketing and PR told Apple to put it back up. I expect some lawyer to be looking for a new job after this horrible gaff. There will be a good amount of press on this story (ironic) and none of it good for NYT. BTW. it is a very nice app.

 

[Cameront9]

I don't get it. I thought the app had been pulled. Just 5 minutes ago I was able to go into the App Store on my iPad, and purchase and download Pulse. I hadn't heard about it before this brouhaha. It seems to be working fine and it does include the NYT feed.

Hm.

It was pulled this morning. It was put back just a little while ago.

 

[BobVB]

That's great but you probably should've noted in your comment that you haven't actually used the app.

Great Idea!

 

[Jaro65]

If Murdoch had his way they wouldn't be able to show any of his content.

I'm sure he still dreams of this becoming a reality one day.

 

[kiljoy616]

This is actually very important. I really hope Pulse wins this.

The point of RSS feeds is to allow them to be subscribed to in newsreaders. If NYT wants to claim that it requires licensing to subscribe to RSS feeds...that could set a bad precedent.

But it is what we see all over when it comes to copyright and patents. So it should be interesting how far this goes, and if copyright become like patents, where you need something on someone else just so they will not attack you at every turn.

As someone else said, no wonder the news companies are having so many problems, they can't seem to get it through their needs what reader want.

 

[gwynne]

More threads on this please.