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

[phineas]

NY Times

You've got to be kidding the most liberal P.O.S. newspaper in the US today. There circulation is down drastically and there complaining about an app.

Freaking joke

 

[whooleytoo]

Except Pulse is not leeching the NYT's content and redistributing it for a fee. They sell you a RSS Reader.

Your phone then connects to the NYT's servers and grabs the NYT's content. It's you that is fetching this content without interaction from Pulse.

Do people here know what RSS Readers are before they comment ? Think Web Browser. Safari isn't packaging the NYT's content and redistributing it.

Your analogy is a big fail, seriously. Redistribution of copyright material without a license is prohibited by law. Building software to access the Internet isn't, or else we wouldn't even have Web browsers.

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I presume publishing an RSS feed doesn't mean the publisher foregoes rights to the feed and its content. They could apply any terms and conditions to their feed (even if they couldn't necessarily enforce those terms).

The NYT terms and conditions state commercial use of those feeds is prohibited. By selling a reader which includes those feeds (and includes the NYT content in its App Store promotional screenshots), it's very likely Pulse is violating those T&Cs.

 

[KnightWRX]

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I presume publishing an RSS feed doesn't mean the publisher foregoes rights to the feed and its content. They could apply any terms and conditions to their feed (even if they couldn't necessarily enforce those terms).

The NYT terms and conditions state commercial use of those feeds is prohibited. By selling a reader which includes those feeds (and includes the NYT content in its App Store promotional screenshots), it's very likely Pulse is violating those T&Cs.

You mean like selling a web browser that includes a bookmark to the NYT ?

Seriously... You guys need a serious refresher on Internet 101.

The only possible infrigment could be the screenshot. Including the NYT's RSS feed address is not redistributing content. It is the user that is fetching the content.

Here is your post applied to web sites, see how ridiculous it sounds :

Please correct me if I'm wrong - but I presume publishing a website doesn't mean the publisher foregoes rights to the website and its content. They could apply any terms and conditions to their website (even if they couldn't necessarily enforce those terms).

The NYT terms and conditions state commercial use of the website is prohibited. By selling a web browser which includes that website (and includes the NYT content in its App Store promotional screenshots), it's very likely Pulse is violating those T&Cs.

 

[whooleytoo]

You mean like selling a web browser that includes a bookmark to the NYT ?

Seriously... You guys need a serious refresher on Internet 101.

The only possible infrigment could be the screenshot. Including the NYT's RSS feed address is not redistributing content. It is the user that is fetching the content.

Here is your post applied to web sites, see how ridiculous it sounds :

It doesn't really matter how it sounds to you or me, it's NYT's content. If you (or Pulse) don't like their T&C, then don't view (or include) their feed.

If we were talking about websites instead of RSS feeds - would it be much different? If Pulse was a paid website, which embedded* NYT content just like the Pulse reader does, the same problem would exist.

(* when I say embedded - I mean visually embedded in a frame/view)

 

[KnightWRX]

It doesn't really matter how it sounds to you or me, it's NYT's content. If you (or Pulse) don't like their T&C, then don't view (or include) their feed.

Does Mozilla agree to all Website terms and conditions before shipping Firefox ? No, because they aren't the users of those sites. You are.

If we were talking about websites instead of RSS feeds - would it be much different? If Pulse was a paid website, which embedded* NYT content just like the Pulse reader does, the same problem would exist.

you have no clue what it is you're talking about right ? You're just arguing to save face now ?

If Pulse was a paid website ? Sure, what if Pulse was a pig that rolled in its own filth, what if Pulse was a stunning blond in high heel shoes, we can transform Pulse all day into things it is not to make analogies work, but in the end Pulse's app is a Web Browser except instead of browsing web sites, it browses RSS Feeds. Any analogy that fails this simple test is wrong.

 

[shervieux]

I for 1 don't see the problem

1. it is an Rss feeder. Other than the fact that it comes pre-loaded with sample feeds, you can remove or add feeds based on URL, or entering a web-address. What is NYT's issue? I can just add the URL into any other RSS feeder.

2. As for when you click on a feed.... it open the story, much like any other feed. I checked out some of the feeds I set up. I did not see anything re-formatted. and when you click on the web portion, it acts just like any other browser and opening up that website.

the only complaint I see is if Steve Jobs did not ask permission to demo NYT at the keynote. And then why would NYT care? Free publicity, and it was displaying what is right on their website.

This is the best RSS feeder I have seen yet, and I am glad I downloaded it. Now if they would just update it to allow more than 20 feeds.

and just for your info - I added feeds for all my local news, News for the city I used to live in and have many friends and family still there, and many others. As soon as they all more than 20 feeds (say 30 or 40), then I can get rid of a few other RSS readers and have everything nicely packaged in this app.

 

[whooleytoo]

Does Mozilla agree to all Website terms and conditions before shipping Firefox ? No, because they aren't the users of those sites. You are.

you have no clue what it is you're talking about right ? You're just arguing to save face now ?

If Pulse was a paid website ? Sure, what if Pulse was a pig that rolled in its own filth, what if Pulse was a stunning blond in high heel shoes, we can transform Pulse all day into things it is not to make analogies work, but in the end Pulse's app is a Web Browser except instead of browsing web sites, it browses RSS Feeds. Any analogy that fails this simple test is wrong.

If the NYT website has the same T&Cs, and Firefox shipped a paid version of Firefox which took you to the NYT site embedded in a Mozilla page without paying any license for it, then yes, the situation would be quite similar. Mozilla don't do that, so the comparison isn't valid.

(The websites analogy was yours, not mine. If you don't like it, you shouldn't use it.)

 

[KnightWRX]

If the NYT website has the same T&Cs, and Firefox shipped a paid version of Firefox which took you to the NYT site embedded in a Mozilla page without paying any license for it, then yes, the situation would be quite similar. Mozilla don't do that, so the comparison isn't valid.

You still fail to understand, Pulse doesn't load the RSS from the NYT, your device and you do.

Pulse aren't bound by the terms and conditions, they simply ship a software that lets you access RSS feeds.

If Firefox was paid, it would still take you to the NYT site, and it would still be embedded in Firefox, because that's how HTML control works in apps... And mozilla wouldn't pay a cent to the NYT because they aren't redistributing their content, they are distributing a Web browser, like Pulse is distributing a RSS Reader. The user decides and ultimately retrieves contents using these apps, be it a Web Browser or RSS Reader.

Seriously, feeling like I'm arguing with somebody completely clueless here. Just admit you have no clue what RSS is and move on.

 

[whooleytoo]

You still fail to understand, Pulse doesn't load the RSS from the NYT, your device and you do.

Pulse aren't bound by the terms and conditions, they simply ship a software that lets you access RSS feeds.

If Firefox was paid, it would still take you to the NYT site, and it would still be embedded in Firefox, because that's how HTML control works in apps... And mozilla wouldn't pay a cent to the NYT because they aren't redistributing their content, they are distributing a Web browser, like Pulse is distributing a RSS Reader. The user decides and ultimately retrieves contents using these apps, be it a Web Browser or RSS Reader.

Seriously, feeling like I'm arguing with somebody completely clueless here. Just admit you have no clue what RSS is and move on.

Insults - the way to win any argument..

The distribution argument is a red-herring (and it wasn't the issue with freeware either, which I mentioned previously, the issue there was asking for payment for distribution, the freeware authors had no problem with freeware distribution in itself).

I could make a website which just embedded the NYT site in a page with my own advertising, and would get into trouble. I could sell an iOS app which embedded the NYT site in it, and get into trouble. I could sell an app which just pulled the NYT RSS feed (and nothing else) and embedded the content in my window. The NYT are claiming that Pulse is just an extension of that last example, it's murky, but I think they have a good case.

Is the NYT feed included and enabled in the RSS sources by default? (Not a rhetorical question, the iPad isn't available here, so I don't know). If it is, then what interaction is required in order to view content from the NYT feed? Does the NYT content just appear in the Pulse 'thumbnails' when you launch the app? Does the content appear embedded in a Pulse view?

If so, it would appear to violate NYT's terms & conditions - and both NYT and Apple seem to think so. Whether the NYT should object to this use is one argument, but it seems they have the right to do so.

 

[KnightWRX]

I could make a website which just embedded the NYT site in a page with my own advertising, and would get into trouble.

Stop, that is not what Pulse is doing. Your premise is completely flawed, your analogies are flawed, your understanding of the whole thing is flawed.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again even after being told you're wrong and you wonder why people somehow feel you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed ?

I have explained it to you over and over again. Pulse is not distributing any content. None at all.

Pulse is a RSS Reader. You use it to read RSS Feeds. The user connects to the NYT's server and loads the RSS Feed. Not Pulse. Pulse just sells you the app that permits reading RSS Feeds same as Opera/Mozilla/Apple/Microsoft/Google with their Web Browsers.

 

[whooleytoo]

Stop, that is not what Pulse is doing. Your premise is completely flawed, your analogies are flawed, your understanding of the whole thing is flawed.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over again even after being told you're wrong and you wonder why people somehow feel you might not be the sharpest tool in the shed ?

I have explained it to you over and over again. Pulse is not distributing any content. None at all.

I never made either of those points. I never said Pulse were making a website embedding the NYT site, and I never said Pulse were distributing content.

Perhaps I might appear less clueless to you if you took the time to read my posts more carefully.

 

[macsmurf]

This reminds me of the old arguments where people would collect freeware apps off the internet and sell them on CD. If they're free to download and use, why not?

Because they're free to the end-user, not free to 3rd parties to use to leech money.

Contrary to modern opinion, putting something on the internet doesn't mean you forego all rights to it.

Actually, there are loads of software where you can do just that. For example, any flavor of Linux or BSD I know of.

 

[BrettJDeriso]

F___ the NY Times! The Grey Lady is really showing her age here. If they don't like people using their RSS feeds in custom reader apps, then why do they publish them?

 

[deadkennedy]

Fanbois against banning and restrictions? Has the world gone mad? I thought nutJobs's fanbois are all for banning and restricting stuff.

 

[furi0usbee]

What is the effin problem? And for those that are sticking up for the NYT.... firstly, you don't even get to see the entire article in the feed, you have to click through and view the website to read the entire article. So NYT has something against Pulse for essentially linking back to their website? Or, is the NYT mad that Pulse may show the image included in the RSS feed? Or let us read the first few sentences... without going to the NYT site? WTF?

I bought Pulse today *because* the NYT is giving them *****. It's a mighty fine RSS reader.

Message to NYT. RSS feeds are public... PUBLIC. Safari can read them, Google has a reader... plus hundreds of other software, both free and paid display RSS. And for one guy who said if Pulse had a website and they charged.... if Pulse charge us for web access to their site, and let us choose which RSS feeds we want to add, yes, we could see the NYT feeds FREE, without Pulse having to pay NYT a penny.

What part of Really Simple Syndication doesn't the NYT understand? It's not RSSP, Really Simple Syndication For Payment.

Pulse 1, NYT 0, game over.

 

[calsci]

I don't see any problem with pulse. The app is great just like steve said.

 

[cycomiko]

Fail to NYTs

They should just go to the pay-site model and die in peace

 

[adib]

Glad I didn't pre-load NYTimes

Thanks for the heads-up. Glad that I didn't pre-load NYTimes in my feed reader application, News Anchor, since the app re-formats RSS feeds into television-like news casts. Looks like if other RSS sites complain, I should simply remove them from the pre-loaded list.

Bizarre! Is the NYTimes concerned about the promotion of the product showing the NYTimes, or the actual concept of the news reader itself? If the latter, does this impact all sales of RSS feed readers?


Link

 

[iMAVERICKam]

Thanks for the heads-up. Glad that I didn't pre-load NYTimes in my feed reader application, News Anchor, since the app re-formats RSS feeds into television-like news casts. Looks like if other RSS sites complain, I should simply remove them from the pre-loaded list.

It looks cool, but seems both useless and like it would be a great way to get feed content while I'm doing something across the room. I'll never know though because I refuse to download products that want to e-mail me a download link instead of just letting me download it straight from the site.

If you're worried about preloaded feeds why not just pull the user's list of feeds from Safari/Mail and Firefox to use as the defaults? It's instantly more useful if I don't have to manually add feeds I'm already subscribed to in other applications. Then again maybe you already do this but I'll never know as long as you insist on giving me the "they're totally going to spam me" feeling.