Look at it from the company lawyers' perspective. They've watched Google have all sorts of legal trouble with companies that objected to Googlebot picking up their news content despite the fact they could have opted out by modifying their robots file (if they didn't want to have their cake and eat it by receiving traffic from Google indexing their headlines whilst suing Google for having the temerity to index their headlines...)
So even though Apple are going after a market where a presumption of "right to excerpt" is even less of a grey area since RSS's raison d'être is to allow third parties to syndicate site-owner controlled excerpts of content, they're still covering their ass by publicising their intent and giving feed owners an easy avenue to opt out. Additionally they point out they might slap banner ads on the aggregation service, and you might want to sort out any copyright/legal issues in advance because they're not accepting any responsibility for it other than passing the message on. Apple aren't doing anything any other aggregations service doesn't do without publicising any opt-out process they have, and they're not imposing any burden on the author they don't already face.
Sure, the tone could use a little work, as could everything written as a legal document ever, but they appear to have managed to do cover their ass in an email which (unlike standard EULAs, especially Apple's) is actually short enough to be readable. I'm not really sure this is one for HN to be up in arms about.
I have more issue with the companies that provide RSS feeds whilst simultaneously displaying terms and conditions prohibiting creating hyperlinks to their website without written permission, which is the sort of weird illogic of the legal departments of traditional publishers this dubiously-drafted message is really aimed at.
I'm not really sure this is one for HN to be up in arms about.
FTA: "If we receive a legal claim about your RSS content, we will tell you so that you can resolve the issue, including indemnifying Apple if Apple is included in the claim."
I guess I don't understand why you do not take issue with this line. Apple has "enrolled" him in an indemnification clause without his consent or request.
There's a clause which mentions that if they receive a legal claim based on your content they'll send you another email asking you to indemnify them, which you may or may not choose to reply to in the unlikely event of it actually happening
(presumably this time, since it's more serious, it'll be opt in, and exactly like DMCA requests they'll take the content off their digital property if you don't explicitly agree to indemnify them and assert your right to publish the content)
Again, I don't see any issue to take with the wording acknowledging the existence of a process whereby their lawyers might send me an email in the event of future complaints. There is no indemnification clause unless and until you receive that email and respond by agreeing to indemnify Apple.
Isn't this standard though? If I link to a website's RSS feed because it is interesting, and that website then posts something illegal, wouldn't my site be indemnified?
Isn't this just like saying "the views expressed here aren't endorsed by our corporation, so don't hold us responsible for the content, only the mechanism by which it is provided" ?
I couldn't disagree with your comments more. No, this isn't standard - attempting to auto-enroll someone into an indemnification clause that has no limits is not 'standard'. And saying '... don't hold us responsible' is the wrong way to look at it - instead, it's more like saying '... if you do hold us responsible, the content creator is the one who actually has to pay the charges."
Sure, the tone could use a little work, as could everything written as a legal document ever, but they appear to have managed to do cover their ass in an email which (unlike standard EULAs, especially Apple's) is actually short enough to be readable. I'm not really sure this is one for HN to be up in arms about.
I have more issue with the companies that provide RSS feeds whilst simultaneously displaying terms and conditions prohibiting creating hyperlinks to their website without written permission, which is the sort of weird illogic of the legal departments of traditional publishers this dubiously-drafted message is really aimed at.