3 ms·
I'm not seeing a problem here. There is tons of precedent for taking a RSS feed and displaying advertising next to it. Google Reader did it. NetNewsWire did it.
by cjensen 11y ago
I'm not seeing a problem here. There is tons of precedent for taking a RSS feed and displaying advertising next to it. Google Reader did it. NetNewsWire did it.
Having an RSS feed implies that you are okay with someone copying what is found in the feed and displaying it to users. Since there is no technical mechanism defined to flag allowable uses, there is presently no way for an RSS author to signal intent or add conditions like "may not be commingled with advertising."
It seems to me that Apple is just providing a heads up to the RSS author what is going to happen, and giving them the chance to opt-out ahead of time. Apple could have done this without asking.
The only weirdness is making it seem like the RSS author has accepted terms unless they respond. That was a poor choice. They should have said "this is how we will run things; to stop us from using your RSS feed, click this link."
- brillenfux 11y agoPutting out a RSS feed does by no means imply consent to third-party use. The same way like putting out pictures doesn't mean everybody can use them. Christ!
- cjensen 11y agoThere are at least a dozen third-party Feed Aggregators who disagree and feel that consent is given. Why is this only an issue now?
- detaro 11y agoBecause they make it very much sound like they derive obligations of the publisher from it. Which as far as I know other aggregators haven't done without proper sign up. You will be responsible for any payments that might be due to any contributors or other third parties for the creation and use of your RSS content. Could potentially be a lot of additional trouble if they get a hold of a feed that wasn't intended to be publicly accessible.
- notahacker 11y agoIf you must create a convenient channel to disseminate material that leaves you commercially exposed when it actually does get shared, it's probably best you don't make it visible to web crawlers. The only thing Apple is doing differently here to many bots that have boldly gone before is sending a warning message.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- payne92 11y agoThe indemnification provision is a big problem. It's basically saying that if someone sues Apple, you are obligated to defend Apple.
- cjensen 11y agoPretty sure that actually says "if someone makes a claim against your feed, we'll let you know. If you say the claim is bs and indemnify us, we'll keep republishing." That can be inferred by the fact that indemnification is a subclause of "you can resolve the issue." In other words, it would be only occur as a result of the RSS author's active and intentional actions in responding to a claim. Again, stupid wording though.
- Animats 11y agoPutting that in an unsolicited email is insane. If someone has an actual copy of that email, with headers, please post it somewhere. Send a copy to the EFF. Send copies to law professors.
- skybrian 11y agoI don't remember any ads in Google Reader. This question suggests there weren't any: http://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Google-put-ads-in-Google-Reader http://www.quora.com/Why-didnt-Google-put-ads-in-Google-Read...