-
Website
http://www.louisgray.com/live/ -
Original page
http://blog.louisgray.com/2008/06/rssmeme-creator-served-with-legal.html -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
http://www.centernetworks.com/content-scraping-...
perhaps now people will start to see the value in my feed for a buck concept. i give you as an individual the right to read my content, i don't give you the right to take it and do whatever you please with it.
free = partial
pay = full
simple as that my friend
of course im sure you will give me some friendfeed argument back :-P
So while I don't have ANY problem with what Benjamin is doing (and if I thought there was any interest for tvbythenumbers.com content in RSS Meme I'd likely have zero problem with him republishing it), but I do probably have a problem with the approach http://www.seriouslytech.com/ is taking and also don't love the likes of Boxxet.com. note, at least with Boxxet, Google seems to have stripped the page rank away from the "sub pages" so Boxxet.com will only outrank our own site for our own content in Google if somehow our stuff hits the front page of Boxxet (which has a higher page rank than our site).
you are missing the distinction between personal and commercial use. It's one thing to offer a full feed for Google Reader (a promotional tool if you like), it's another thing for someone to steal your content/ book and resell it. No one would stand for a stolen book, why are blogs any different? Under copyright law they aren't. Fair use allows for an extract, anything more is theft where permission hasn't been obtained for commercial use
Wrong. It has long been dead and buried, it's just that some are trying to get away with content theft again under the banner of 2.0. Copyright law is clear who is right and wrong, and it has long been established that the publication of full content feeds is for personal use (ie feedreader) and not for commercial use. The only people who cloud this distinction are the very people who are trying to exploit the labors of others, the leaches like Teare and Favorit.
In Benjamin's defense I believe, at least from the FF feed on this topic, but he honestly didn't know the copyright position before now, and the fact that he's pulled full feeds is a definite positive in my books. However the argument that if you don't want your items published you shouldn't offer full feeds is a typical splogger position and I hope Benjamin soon drops it. Again: full RSS feeds are offered to personal consumption, NOT commercial republication, unless permission has been granted or a license is in place for that content to be republished.
Would that fall under the same restrictions?
I do think it's cool that you are taking these things under consideration, though.
By the way, I have some questions about feedly that I'd like to sideband.. can I get your email? Or can you email me at phil at scribkin dot com.. thanks.
Also, there are ways to make a site have no RSS feed. I read a blog (Que Sera Sera) that does not have a public RSS feed. To me, this is a clear statement telling people... read it on this site and don't syndicate it.
I think this other person should do the same, if they don't like feed aggregators picking up their stuff.
a commercial replication of full content is NOT the same as a personal use, ad free service like Google Reader. People publish full content feeds so people can follow their work, they don't grant the right for others to republish it in full on their own sites then put ads around it. The argument that if you don't want your content copied then don't publish a RSS feed is a long favored argument of the splogging community, but I can also scrape any website as well...should we just not publish anything at all under that logic then?
Haha, I never considered myself a part of the 'splogging community,' and, although I may have repeated one of 'their' favored arguments, I was actually just stating my thoughts.
That said, you are right -- there are lots of ways to steal content from a site, and like a photo, there should be a way (like creative commons perhaps?) that people can share their content without other people making money off of it.
I could see where, at first blush, RSSmeme appears to have all the elements of a 'splog'.. it has an ad, it has its own comment system, and it republishes full article text (if the original feed uses full text).
However, personally I know that the RSSmeme site is almost secondary. The way I use it, it could just have article headlines, and as long as it does its job of finding me new shared articles and the ability to re-sort said articles in different ways, I'm happy.
Now Google Shared items & Newsgators clippings folders both publish full feed content publicly. You can view all the RSS articles I've shared in FeedDemon in my Newsgator clippings feed ( http://services.newsgator.com/ngws/svc/Clipping... ) and the same goes for Google Reader shared items. Google takes it one step further by providing a HTML page where anyone can view these items. The only difference between these two things and what RSSMeme was doing is the display ads. Is that the issue? If there weren't ads on RSSMeme would anyone have complained?
I'm not sure what the law is in the States, but I know in some countries, businesses can copy a few pages of a book, since its considered fair deal. So the analogy would be that any rss aggregator can rebroadcast a few feeds as long as they clearly state the source.
Therefore, since RSSmeme is not rebroadcasting an entire day's blog roll, but a select few based on shared popularity, wouldn't it fall under fair deal?
Lastly, I guess it comes done to the question of responsibility? Is it the bloggers responsibility to supply partial feeds, or the feed aggregator to only broadcast partial feeds.
and mystics have always told us, we own nothing ... looks like they may be right
Surely it's that straightforward!
Don't publish an RSS feed if you're going to get upset over where your content goes.