5 ms·

Pulse App praised by NYT & Jobs,then Booted From App Store (NYT complaint)

37 points by credo 16y ago

sh1mmer 16y ago
Sometimes I wonder if the lawyers supposedly "protecting" brands release the harm they can do. I wonder if the Times' legal department actually contacted anyone in product before doing this.
fondue 16y ago
"The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use*." So according to their lawyers you can view their RSS feed as long as you haven't purchased the viewer? I think I just broke something in my brain.
- gscott 16y ago
  Just that many people fewer consuming NY Times content as the NY Times goes bankrupt with the rest of the newspaper industry.
- bbb 16y ago
  So according to their lawyers you can view their RSS feed as long as you haven't purchased the viewer? No, you, the consumer, are not making commercial use of the NYTimes.com newsfeed. The company producing the Pulse reader, however, is making commercial use of the NYT brand and content by featuring it prominently in the advertising material. So, as mentioned by others, the easiest solution seems to be to remove all NYT references (and other unlicensed brands) and resubmit.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - fondue 16y ago
    I can see an objection to that, but it's pretty clear the NYT lawyers don't understand that they are sharing their content freely on the internet via the RSS feed and there's no coinbox on the front-end to gate it. This reminds me of companies complaining about web sites not getting approval to link them.
ErrantX 16y ago
“The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use. Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.” Excuse my language but; what a crock full of shit. The last line in particular is the kind of thing that makes me really mad about lawyer driven nonsense such as this. What, for example, is the browser if not a frame? Ok, I can partially buy the first section because of the commercial aspect; but I still think it is a bit idiotic to insist things like that. I simply don't see how anyone benefits from such action?
- SkyMarshal 16y ago
  Was thinking the same thing. Unbelievable. And the 'frame' clearly even includes the ads in the NY Times website. Pulse is giving them both free content and free ad distribution, and they're bitching about $4. To paraphrase the creepy paperboy, "Four dollars! I want my four dollars!" Is that what the NY Times has come to? Unbelievable.
bshep 16y ago
So? remove NYTimes.com & Boston.com from the newsfeeds and screenshots and re-submit, should be fine. In the end this will only hurt the NYT since they get less readers. I honestly dont get these 'failing newspapers' they cry about not making enough money, but when you get people interested in their product they start complaining.
jonknee 16y ago
Ironically Safari also "makes commercial use" out of NY Times' RSS feed (it's in the default bookmarks along with RSS).
- bbb 16y ago
  Not so ironic if you consider that Apple probably has a legal agreement with the NYT company to do so. Just look at how frequently the NYT is featured in Apple commercials and presentations; this doesn't happen just by accident. The problem here is that the Pulse reader is (from the point of view of the NYT) trying to get a free ride on the NYT's brand name. This is really no different from ripping off any other brand name to advocate your product, e.g., you can't advertise your "high-performance shoe laces" by prominently featuring Nike shoes without obtaining prior approval.
  - jonknee 16y ago
    I think Steve just likes the NY Times and they know they can't build a browser but can (and have) written an iPad app.
- adolph 16y ago
  I was wondering about that too. I figured all of the default bookmarks were a commercial side-load only a touch less obnoxious than the applications various hardware makers add to Windows installations. I think that there is a difference between including a feature that suggests 3rd party data such as NYT RSS and something that includes it by default. Imagine if they had a free version that served up ads with NYT content--that wouldn't be very fair to NYT, would it?
smackfu 16y ago
Interesting timing. The NYTimes iPad app released an update yesterday that had a crash-on-start bug and required them to pull their own app from the store for most of the day.
- Tamerlin 16y ago
  Maybe they were jealous because people were buying Pulse rather than their own app ;)
jokermatt999 16y ago
Is there a website somewhere keeping track of the various App Store takedowns? It'd be interesting to see a nice list of them. Stories about apps being pulled for largely crap reasons seem to come up at a rate of about one a week, if not more frequently. However, although I've seen dozens of them, I don't think I've ever seen a nice list of them. I think it'd be interesting to see how the App Store policies are actually enforced.
- illumin8 16y ago
  I know it's fashionable to bitch at Apple for any app that gets pulled, but they received a legal notice from an attorney representing the NY Times, so they had no choice but to take action.
  - jokermatt999 16y ago
    Fair enough in this case, and an even better reason for such a list. It could also point out cases where the takedowns were legitimate, but were bitched about. The fact that this case was fair (well, fair because legal action was threatened, otherwise I think it'd be somewhat ridiculous), the point still stands that it would be good to have some "case law" on the app store policies. Since the regulation is subjective, it would be useful to see how it's interpretted.
- lylejohnson 16y ago
  App Rejections (http://apprejections.com/ http://apprejections.com/) is one such site, although they don't yet list Pulse.

37 points by credo 16y ago

Sometimes I wonder if the lawyers supposedly "protecting" brands release the harm they can do. I wonder if the Times' legal department actually contacted anyone in product before doing this.

fondue 16y ago

"The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use*." So according to their lawyers you can view their RSS feed as long as you haven't purchased the viewer? I think I just broke something in my brain.

gscott 16y ago
Just that many people fewer consuming NY Times content as the NY Times goes bankrupt with the rest of the newspaper industry.
bbb 16y ago
So according to their lawyers you can view their RSS feed as long as you haven't purchased the viewer? No, you, the consumer, are not making commercial use of the NYTimes.com newsfeed. The company producing the Pulse reader, however, is making commercial use of the NYT brand and content by featuring it prominently in the advertising material. So, as mentioned by others, the easiest solution seems to be to remove all NYT references (and other unlicensed brands) and resubmit.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- fondue 16y ago
  I can see an objection to that, but it's pretty clear the NYT lawyers don't understand that they are sharing their content freely on the internet via the RSS feed and there's no coinbox on the front-end to gate it. This reminds me of companies complaining about web sites not getting approval to link them.

ErrantX 16y ago

“The Pulse News Reader app, makes commercial use of the NYTimes.com and Boston.com RSS feeds, in violation of their Terms of Use. Thus, the use of our content is unlicensed. The app also frames the NYTimes.com and Boston.com websites in violation of their respective Terms of Use.” Excuse my language but; what a crock full of shit. The last line in particular is the kind of thing that makes me really mad about lawyer driven nonsense such as this. What, for example, is the browser if not a frame? Ok, I can partially buy the first section because of the commercial aspect; but I still think it is a bit idiotic to insist things like that. I simply don't see how anyone benefits from such action?

SkyMarshal 16y ago
Was thinking the same thing. Unbelievable. And the 'frame' clearly even includes the ads in the NY Times website. Pulse is giving them both free content and free ad distribution, and they're bitching about $4. To paraphrase the creepy paperboy, "Four dollars! I want my four dollars!" Is that what the NY Times has come to? Unbelievable.

bshep 16y ago

So? remove NYTimes.com & Boston.com from the newsfeeds and screenshots and re-submit, should be fine. In the end this will only hurt the NYT since they get less readers. I honestly dont get these 'failing newspapers' they cry about not making enough money, but when you get people interested in their product they start complaining.

jonknee 16y ago

Ironically Safari also "makes commercial use" out of NY Times' RSS feed (it's in the default bookmarks along with RSS).

bbb 16y ago
Not so ironic if you consider that Apple probably has a legal agreement with the NYT company to do so. Just look at how frequently the NYT is featured in Apple commercials and presentations; this doesn't happen just by accident. The problem here is that the Pulse reader is (from the point of view of the NYT) trying to get a free ride on the NYT's brand name. This is really no different from ripping off any other brand name to advocate your product, e.g., you can't advertise your "high-performance shoe laces" by prominently featuring Nike shoes without obtaining prior approval.
- jonknee 16y ago
  I think Steve just likes the NY Times and they know they can't build a browser but can (and have) written an iPad app.
adolph 16y ago
I was wondering about that too. I figured all of the default bookmarks were a commercial side-load only a touch less obnoxious than the applications various hardware makers add to Windows installations. I think that there is a difference between including a feature that suggests 3rd party data such as NYT RSS and something that includes it by default. Imagine if they had a free version that served up ads with NYT content--that wouldn't be very fair to NYT, would it?

smackfu 16y ago

Interesting timing. The NYTimes iPad app released an update yesterday that had a crash-on-start bug and required them to pull their own app from the store for most of the day.

Tamerlin 16y ago
Maybe they were jealous because people were buying Pulse rather than their own app ;)

jokermatt999 16y ago

Is there a website somewhere keeping track of the various App Store takedowns? It'd be interesting to see a nice list of them. Stories about apps being pulled for largely crap reasons seem to come up at a rate of about one a week, if not more frequently. However, although I've seen dozens of them, I don't think I've ever seen a nice list of them. I think it'd be interesting to see how the App Store policies are actually enforced.

illumin8 16y ago
I know it's fashionable to bitch at Apple for any app that gets pulled, but they received a legal notice from an attorney representing the NY Times, so they had no choice but to take action.
- jokermatt999 16y ago
  Fair enough in this case, and an even better reason for such a list. It could also point out cases where the takedowns were legitimate, but were bitched about. The fact that this case was fair (well, fair because legal action was threatened, otherwise I think it'd be somewhat ridiculous), the point still stands that it would be good to have some "case law" on the app store policies. Since the regulation is subjective, it would be useful to see how it's interpretted.
lylejohnson 16y ago
App Rejections (http://apprejections.com/ http://apprejections.com/) is one such site, although they don't yet list Pulse.