4 ms·

It's funny how they don't even give a damn about your copyright. If you did this with Apples content you would get shit left and right, but since it's Apple doi

It's funny how they don't even give a damn about your copyright. If you did this with Apples content you would get shit left and right, but since it's Apple doing it to you this time they can just assume your consent by implication. Glorious! The state of copyright. Right, Fucking, There!

zokier 11y ago
Do you think every RSS reader is infringing copyright by displaying other peoples content, or is Apple somehow a special case here?
- brillenfux 11y ago
  You do understand that the Apple News app is a content aggregation service and not a feed reader, right? Apple is providing a service with your content. A feed reader is usually controlled by the individual reading the feeds. The programs themselves usually don't aggregate or redact in any way — or enrich it with advertisement. And if they do they are just as bad. However the email is a gem in itself.
  - eli 11y ago
    I'm having a hard time seeing a moral or legal difference between a feed reader that aggregates content from a bunch of feeds and a content aggregation service that aggregates content from a bunch of different feeds.
    - pulmo 11y ago
      1) The process of content selection shifts from the user to the service provider, liability for copyright infringement also shifts because now they have influence over and responsibility for the content selection process. 2) The user of a content aggregation service is paying (directly via money transfer or indirectly by seeing ads) for the content selection, not only for the provision of an automated service to retrieve feeds. One could argue that the revenue the service provider creates with content selection is based on the publisher's content, the publisher therefore should get a share of it.
    - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
      A feed reader is like a TiVo someone uses to backup shows from the cable television service they have license to use, so that they can personally watch those shows. A content aggregation service is like someone ripping shows and then uploading them to a public website surrounded by revenue generating ads. The difference is pretty clear from a copyright apologists standpoint. Personally I don't see a moral problem with either of these, since neither scenario deprives the author of their data/content. No theft has taken place. I don't believe in copyright. But I suspect you, like most people, do.
oneeyedpigeon 11y ago
I wonder what Apple would do if we all sent them an email saying we'll republish their content alongside our own advertising unless they send us a personal letter requesting otherwise. Presumably, they'd play ball - same rules for all, right?
- brillenfux 11y ago
  Absolutely! I would just go ahead. Good Luck :)
Tloewald 11y ago
When you search for, say, Apple developer information in Google, Google sticks ads in the results next to links to Apple's content. Does it pay Apple?
- brillenfux 11y ago
  Are you really relativizing the fact that Apple is aɡgregating full RSS content and has the confidence to send unsolicited email to contrive implied consent to the point of comparing it with Google putting ads next to small snippets of search results Apple consented to (albeit also just implied)?
  - Tloewald 11y ago
    No, I'm just pointing out the sticking ads next to content from other people without paying them is a huge part of Google's business model. By the way, in what way does anyone consent to having google ads show up in search results showing their content? Not having a robots.txt file blocking bots?

zokier 11y ago

Do you think every RSS reader is infringing copyright by displaying other peoples content, or is Apple somehow a special case here?

brillenfux 11y ago
You do understand that the Apple News app is a content aggregation service and not a feed reader, right? Apple is providing a service with your content. A feed reader is usually controlled by the individual reading the feeds. The programs themselves usually don't aggregate or redact in any way — or enrich it with advertisement. And if they do they are just as bad. However the email is a gem in itself.
- eli 11y ago
  I'm having a hard time seeing a moral or legal difference between a feed reader that aggregates content from a bunch of feeds and a content aggregation service that aggregates content from a bunch of different feeds.
  - pulmo 11y ago
    1) The process of content selection shifts from the user to the service provider, liability for copyright infringement also shifts because now they have influence over and responsibility for the content selection process. 2) The user of a content aggregation service is paying (directly via money transfer or indirectly by seeing ads) for the content selection, not only for the provision of an automated service to retrieve feeds. One could argue that the revenue the service provider creates with content selection is based on the publisher's content, the publisher therefore should get a share of it.
  - MacsHeadroom 11y ago
    A feed reader is like a TiVo someone uses to backup shows from the cable television service they have license to use, so that they can personally watch those shows. A content aggregation service is like someone ripping shows and then uploading them to a public website surrounded by revenue generating ads. The difference is pretty clear from a copyright apologists standpoint. Personally I don't see a moral problem with either of these, since neither scenario deprives the author of their data/content. No theft has taken place. I don't believe in copyright. But I suspect you, like most people, do.

oneeyedpigeon 11y ago

I wonder what Apple would do if we all sent them an email saying we'll republish their content alongside our own advertising unless they send us a personal letter requesting otherwise. Presumably, they'd play ball - same rules for all, right?

brillenfux 11y ago
Absolutely! I would just go ahead. Good Luck :)

Tloewald 11y ago

When you search for, say, Apple developer information in Google, Google sticks ads in the results next to links to Apple's content. Does it pay Apple?

brillenfux 11y ago
Are you really relativizing the fact that Apple is aɡgregating full RSS content and has the confidence to send unsolicited email to contrive implied consent to the point of comparing it with Google putting ads next to small snippets of search results Apple consented to (albeit also just implied)?
- Tloewald 11y ago
  No, I'm just pointing out the sticking ads next to content from other people without paying them is a huge part of Google's business model. By the way, in what way does anyone consent to having google ads show up in search results showing their content? Not having a robots.txt file blocking bots?