No, not really. I personally think this whole mess is because they pre-packaged NYT RSS feeds and also used that in their screenshots (don't know that last point for sure, but I think thats the case?), and then they make it a commercial app.
Is one thing for a user to add a RSS feed, its another to pre-package it in a commercial app.
Its not about 'free traffic' its about saying 'hey, thats not cool' IMHO. I would also add, until his all came up I wouldn't have guessed it was an issue until I thought about it more.
Disclaimer: I do work for NYT but have nothing to do with this whole drama. I'm just as interested as anyone here. Oh, and all this is my personal opinion and not necessarily that of blah de blah blah blah....
It's a link. It's no different from being in the default set of bookmarks. If that's "pre-packaging," anyone who distributes a link to the NYTimes with paid software is guilty of the same thing.
It is a Headline and Summary with a Link. Completely different. I doubt that changes your point or your mind, but lets be clear on whats going on.
I would also add, that this in itself (IMHO) is harmless, but there is also the issue of using NYT content etc in marketing materials (screenshots) for a paid app.
I think that the RSS link/headline&summary by itself is harmless, but that together its a bigger deal.
BTW I don't necessarily disagree with you. I just feel that people are dealing with each issue isolation and losing the overall context.
>Is one thing for a user to add a RSS feed, its another to pre-package it in a commercial app.
The only thing they are pre-packaging is a link. Yes, it displays the content, but it's no different from any other piece of client software in that regard. They do not pre-package any NYT content, which was what I mean when I said it's only a link.
The ad material is the only place where the NYT might have a case, but it seems pretty clear that was not their issue, or they would have objected to the ad, not the software.
