4 ms·

Cease-and-Desist Against iPad News Aggregator Zite

18 points by zoowar 16y ago

MatthewPhillips 16y ago
Makes sense. There's a thin line between providing a better reading experience and redistributing someone else's work. Readability/Read it Later/Instapaper can survive because their service is user-driven. Zite's going to have to concentrate on their recommendation engine (which is excellent) and forget about the presentation layer. Writers have the right to choose how their work is presented. It's not worth it for Zite to try and fight this. That leaves Flipboard in an awkward position though; their business is all about presentation. Partnerships are a way around it, but I just don't see that being all that profitable.
- Entaroadun 16y ago
  Yeah, Zite is my favorite app on the ipad. I wish they made it for the desktop and iphone. The one thing they can improve upon in their rec. engine is removing dupe articles. It'll definitely be interesting to see if Zite can find a good way around this.
jrockway 16y ago
How is this any different than Instapaper or a browser with AdBlock? What law is being violated?
- mikeryan 16y ago
  I can't tell if the question is asked in earnest but copyright is the law being violated. Instapaper likely has the same issues, but at least the page is actually viewed once to save the article so the content owners may not care as much. This is going to be a ongoing issue and, frankly, the content owners have a very valid point.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    Copyright has fair-use provisions. I don't see how using a service to reformat content and remove ads is any different than using a DVR to record TV and fast-forward through commercials, or to use the feature of your TV that converts 4:3 content to something that fills the 16:9 screen. It may not be what the people holding the copyright on that content want, but our society has decided that's Too Fucking Bad. An application that downloads articles and removes the ads is like a DVR for web content. And, honestly, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to allow outsourcing of the DVR-ing. I can pay someone to clean my house; why can't I pay someone to record TV and then send me the video files?
- anigbrowl 16y ago
  It's different by virtue of centralized redistribution, which infringes upon publishers' copyright interest.
- eli 16y ago
  On the other hand, how is it any different from me copy/pasting whole AP articles onto my blog?
null_ptr 16y ago
analyzes users’ everyday reading habits — what stories are bypassed, what stories are clicked on, and how long they’re read for — to give users a magazine smartly tailored to their interests. So, say goodbye to stumbling on anything new out of your tailored sphere of interests.
eli 16y ago
Previous discussion from when this story was posted a month ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389622

18 points by zoowar 16y ago

Makes sense. There's a thin line between providing a better reading experience and redistributing someone else's work. Readability/Read it Later/Instapaper can survive because their service is user-driven. Zite's going to have to concentrate on their recommendation engine (which is excellent) and forget about the presentation layer. Writers have the right to choose how their work is presented. It's not worth it for Zite to try and fight this. That leaves Flipboard in an awkward position though; their business is all about presentation. Partnerships are a way around it, but I just don't see that being all that profitable.

Entaroadun 16y ago
Yeah, Zite is my favorite app on the ipad. I wish they made it for the desktop and iphone. The one thing they can improve upon in their rec. engine is removing dupe articles. It'll definitely be interesting to see if Zite can find a good way around this.

jrockway 16y ago

How is this any different than Instapaper or a browser with AdBlock? What law is being violated?

mikeryan 16y ago
I can't tell if the question is asked in earnest but copyright is the law being violated. Instapaper likely has the same issues, but at least the page is actually viewed once to save the article so the content owners may not care as much. This is going to be a ongoing issue and, frankly, the content owners have a very valid point.
- jrockway 16y ago
  Copyright has fair-use provisions. I don't see how using a service to reformat content and remove ads is any different than using a DVR to record TV and fast-forward through commercials, or to use the feature of your TV that converts 4:3 content to something that fills the 16:9 screen. It may not be what the people holding the copyright on that content want, but our society has decided that's Too Fucking Bad. An application that downloads articles and removes the ads is like a DVR for web content. And, honestly, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to allow outsourcing of the DVR-ing. I can pay someone to clean my house; why can't I pay someone to record TV and then send me the video files?
anigbrowl 16y ago
It's different by virtue of centralized redistribution, which infringes upon publishers' copyright interest.
eli 16y ago
On the other hand, how is it any different from me copy/pasting whole AP articles onto my blog?

null_ptr 16y ago

analyzes users’ everyday reading habits — what stories are bypassed, what stories are clicked on, and how long they’re read for — to give users a magazine smartly tailored to their interests. So, say goodbye to stumbling on anything new out of your tailored sphere of interests.

eli 16y ago

Previous discussion from when this story was posted a month ago: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389622 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2389622