It’s been a while. I’ve been on the isle of man for the TT.
Anyway, I see that Apple have jumped on a bandwagon that was first tried by Pluck nearly ten years go. The model they are both seeking to exploit is that of naïvety and outright stupidity, combined with vanity on the part of amateur writers. They get the writers content for nothing and then either sell it on or use it to host advertising, for which they get the revenue. The blogger, meanwhile is expected to bask in the glory of being published.
Look, I know that being published is nice, but giving away content to a commercial organisation for them to effectively resell is underselling oneself. If it’s good enough to be published by a major publishing house, then it is good enough to be paid for. If they don’t want to pay for it, well, they can fuck off, frankly.
Like Pluck, Apple have some rather unpleasant terms and conditions – which, frankly, is a cheek. They want your content for nothing and then want to impose conditions? Jeebus, the effrontery of it.
An unsolicited email from Apple inviting publishers to join the service presumes acceptance of the terms, unless they actively opt out.
It requires them to cover Apple if legal issues arise, among other things.
So, you get an email from these creeps and unless you opt out, they presume you consent to their egregious terms and conditions? As Mike Ash points out:
He wrote: “Let me get this straight, Apple: you send me an email outlining the terms under which you will redistribute my content, and you will just assume that I agree to your terms unless I opt out?
“You’re going to consider me bound to terms you just declared to me in an email as long as I don’t respond? That’s completely crazy. You don’t even know if I received the email!”
Well, quite.
I don’t charge for this blog. However if any entity wants to use it for commercial purposes, then they pay commercial rates. Apple can fuck right off, frankly.
Effing right. A contract is a two way agreement, and taking someone’s content for commercial purposes without payment, then telling the creator they can’t do stuff with their own material is a bloody cheek. Even if the content creator is stupid enough to sign.
I have a notion that this sort of agreement is unenforceable anyway.
Surely that will fail in court the first time it’s tested? Even in Zimbabwe!
Indeed.
Contract law aside … what does this tell you about Apple’s mindset and that of their lawyers….
Yet another reason to not buy their products.
Phew! Glad to see you back, Longie. Was getting worried about you.
One option for counter-attack might be for bloggers en mass to include in every post a prominent header containing an anti-Apple story. The stories would have to be factual so as not to be libelous but even a nice big link to an “Apple are scumbags” themed story from the mainstream press might dissuade copying.