2 ms·

IANAL but I can't see how not replying to their email could possibly bind the publisher to anything. In effect Apple is using the content absent any agreement,

by markbnj 11y ago

IANAL but I can't see how not replying to their email could possibly bind the publisher to anything. In effect Apple is using the content absent any agreement, and simply trusting that most people will be thrilled and agree out of hand.

Nadya 11y ago
The legal system is a bit flawed in this regard. Biased towards "strongarmers" with deep enough pockets to hold a lawsuit. While I don't think the email is legally binding unless "signed" (responded to in an affirmative manner) - they could still use it to take you to court regardless over it. Many people would lack the funds needed to defend themselves so wouldn't bother trying to defend and are therefore forced into acceptance. Unless you can find a pro-gratis lawyer or a "no win, no fees" to take the case. The extra terms are mostly to cover Apple's ass in case your content is illegal. If you get sued for your content for whatever weird, legal reason that might happen and Apple gets listed for providing access to your content through News (would that even happen?) and the case gets through and somehow Apple isn't excluded from the case (even if listed, I don't see how they would be found liable) you agree to pay for them. Which is definitely something you don't want to do. The likelihood is small/impossibly rare or maybe even impossible. But Apple's Lawyers want to cover Apple's ass "just in case". Outside of a few restrictive licenses - they can already display content next to ads without your permission. Mikeash would either need to properly license their blog or decline rights to Apple. By writing his blog he has identified that he has read the e-mail. Although I don't think it's legally binding at that point (regardless if it says he agrees to it unless he opts-out), IANAL. If a lawsuit ever occurs over the use of his content and Apple is involved - attempting to prove he has read their e-mail to try and enforce the terms would mean they have read his blog to know he has read the e-mail, which means they have seen his denial of their terms. A catch-22.

by markbnj 11y ago

Nadya 11y ago

The legal system is a bit flawed in this regard. Biased towards "strongarmers" with deep enough pockets to hold a lawsuit. While I don't think the email is legally binding unless "signed" (responded to in an affirmative manner) - they could still use it to take you to court regardless over it. Many people would lack the funds needed to defend themselves so wouldn't bother trying to defend and are therefore forced into acceptance. Unless you can find a pro-gratis lawyer or a "no win, no fees" to take the case. The extra terms are mostly to cover Apple's ass in case your content is illegal. If you get sued for your content for whatever weird, legal reason that might happen and Apple gets listed for providing access to your content through News (would that even happen?) and the case gets through and somehow Apple isn't excluded from the case (even if listed, I don't see how they would be found liable) you agree to pay for them. Which is definitely something you don't want to do. The likelihood is small/impossibly rare or maybe even impossible. But Apple's Lawyers want to cover Apple's ass "just in case". Outside of a few restrictive licenses - they can already display content next to ads without your permission. Mikeash would either need to properly license their blog or decline rights to Apple. By writing his blog he has identified that he has read the e-mail. Although I don't think it's legally binding at that point (regardless if it says he agrees to it unless he opts-out), IANAL. If a lawsuit ever occurs over the use of his content and Apple is involved - attempting to prove he has read their e-mail to try and enforce the terms would mean they have read his blog to know he has read the e-mail, which means they have seen his denial of their terms. A catch-22.