Hacker News Reader

Comment by ScottWhigham | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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."

Reply on news.ycombinator.com