

Pulse App praised by NYT & Jobs,then Booted From App Store (NYT complaint) - credo
http://kara.allthingsd.com/20100608/popular-pulse-news-reader-ipad-app-gets-steve-jobs-praise-in-morning-then-booted-from-app-store-hours-later-after-new-york-times-complaint/

======
fondue
"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.

~~~
bbb
_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.

~~~
fondue
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.

------
bshep
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.

------
ErrantX
_“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
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.

------
smackfu
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
Maybe they were jealous because people were buying Pulse rather than their own
app ;)

------
jokermatt999
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
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
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.

------
sh1mmer
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.

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

~~~
bbb
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
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.

