Copyright

In article <1rd6k2q1f8z8q.1bhad5kxedvk0.dlg RemoveThis @40tude.net>,
Els <els.aNOSPAM RemoveThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:

> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>
> > In article <h0bckuig5hz$.d4ibpn1hvy8a.dlg@40tude.net>,
> > Els <els.aNOSPAM RemoveThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:
> >
> >> I mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means
> >> of a button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I
> >> explicitly state otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can
> >> just publish my feed on their websites without asking me?
> >
> > Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
> > should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
>
> Nope, can't agree with that. With that logic, you may just as well
> copy my entire site, put a line above it that says "Els' site", and
> republish it like that. Your web site would then just be another
> specialized browser to read my site, right?

Nice straw man, and I'm going to agree "right", if only because it's not
what you expected. In fact, Google does exactly what you describe, yet
I don't see your robots.txt trying to stop them. So clearly your grasp
of logic is lacking.

> > Like it or not, you have to accept that the user can choose *whatever*
> > template they like to view your XML.
>
> One user, yes. Republish for the rest of the world, no.

Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing? You're going to have to explain
the material difference. From my perspective, it's is just a lot less
bandwidth when my feed gets shared *regardless* of the technology
involved.

> > The only problem that comes into
> > play is if a site attempts to use your feed content without attribution
> > and/or pass it off as their own content.
>
> So you just put a one-liner at the top: "disclaimer: the content below
> is not mine, but a mirror of http://blog.locusmeus.com/ ".
> According to you that solves the copyright issue? Wouldn't think so,
> really.

I don't see you suing every spider on the planet to enforce your strange
"zero links in" webmastering. Anyone using their brain can see that not
only is the purpose of a web site to draw visitors, but the further
purpose of a feed is to draw readers to that same site *regardless* of
how it gets displayed. Don't like it? Don't offer a feed.

--
My personal UDP list: 127.0.0.1, 4ax.com, buzzardnews.com, googlegroups.com,
heapnode.com, localhost, ntli.net, teranews.com, vif.com, x-privat.org
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.RemoveThis@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>>> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>
>> From the summary:
>>
>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant
>> you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of
>> copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net."
>>
>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>
> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it should
> be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the ordinary
> flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of any sane
> webmaster that they will be processed and used in a non-specific
> fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets, screensavers,
> specialized readers, and monitoring software of all kinds. If you don't
> like it, stop going to the extra effort of providing an XML file that
> can easily be used for the purpose of it's design.
>

How you feel is not the law. Els is correct in her statements.

When an artistic work (including web pages, rss feeds, etc.) is created,
the person creating it (or, in the case of an employee, the employer)
has an implicit copyright to it. Other than fair use (i.e. quoting
excerpts), you cannot copy or use it in any manner.

Republishing a feed, even if it's a public feed, is a copyright
violation and can be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:

> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>> > should be considered just another specialized browser or feed
>> > reader.
>>
>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>
>> From the summary:
>>
>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't
>> grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the
>> sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow
>> of the net."
>>
>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>
> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the
> ordinary flow" part.

No it hasn't. The question is: can copying feed content 1:1 to a website
with AdSense next to it be considered "the ordinary flow"?

> For feeds, it is very much the expectation of
> any sane webmaster that they will be processed and used in a
> non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets,
> screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software of all
> kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort of
> providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of it's
> design.

I doubt that the design included people republishing a feed on their own
site 1:1 with adsense slapped on it. Anyway, it doesn't matter what your
opinion is on this. What matters to me is that as soon as it happens with
*my* stuff and I report it to the hosting provider that either the page or
the whole site is removed from the net.

Also, Google doesn't seem to love sites that do nothing but using feed
search engines to get content and slap AdSense on it (Google kicks you out
of the index, and cancels AdSense).

--
John Bokma http://johnbokma.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:

>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant
>> you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of
>> copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net."
>>
>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>
> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it should
> be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the ordinary
> flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of any sane
> webmaster that they will be processed and used in a non-specific
> fashion.

No it isn't. As far as I can see I'm entirely sane, and I'm not
expecting a full republishing of my entire feed.

> They will be incorporated into widgets, screensavers,
> specialized readers, and monitoring software of all kinds.

Not in other people's websites.

> If you don't
> like it, stop going to the extra effort of providing an XML file that
> can easily be used for the purpose of it's design.

That's the same as saying I shouldn't write a website in HTML if I
don't want my content republished because it can be scraped too
easily.

XML is used so that subscribers can read my content in specialized
readers, not so that you can republish it.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

John Bokma wrote:
> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>
>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.TakeThisOut@130.133.1.4>,
>> John Bokma <john.TakeThisOut@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.TakeThisOut@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>>>> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed
>>>> reader.
>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>
>>> From the summary:
>>>
>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't
>>> grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the
>>> sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow
>>> of the net."
>>>
>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
>> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the
>> ordinary flow" part.
>
> No it hasn't. The question is: can copying feed content 1:1 to a website
> with AdSense next to it be considered "the ordinary flow"?
>
>> For feeds, it is very much the expectation of
>> any sane webmaster that they will be processed and used in a
>> non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets,
>> screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software of all
>> kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort of
>> providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of it's
>> design.
>
> I doubt that the design included people republishing a feed on their own
> site 1:1 with adsense slapped on it. Anyway, it doesn't matter what your
> opinion is on this. What matters to me is that as soon as it happens with
> *my* stuff and I report it to the hosting provider that either the page or
> the whole site is removed from the net.
>
> Also, Google doesn't seem to love sites that do nothing but using feed
> search engines to get content and slap AdSense on it (Google kicks you out
> of the index, and cancels AdSense).
>

But why inject practical business decisions into the matter?
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Doc O'Leary wrote:
> In article <1rd6k2q1f8z8q.1bhad5kxedvk0.dlg DeleteThis @40tude.net>,
> Els <els.aNOSPAM DeleteThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:
>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>> In article <h0bckuig5hz$.d4ibpn1hvy8a.dlg@40tude.net>,
>>> Els <els.aNOSPAM DeleteThis @tiscali.nl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I mean, I have an RSS feed on my site, it's "advertised" by means
>>>> of a button. Does that mean that in your opinion, unless I
>>>> explicitly state otherwise in my feed, people can assume they can
>>>> just publish my feed on their websites without asking me?
>>>
>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>>> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
>>
>> Nope, can't agree with that. With that logic, you may just as well
>> copy my entire site, put a line above it that says "Els' site", and
>> republish it like that. Your web site would then just be another
>> specialized browser to read my site, right?
>
> Nice straw man, and I'm going to agree "right", if only because it's not
> what you expected. In fact, Google does exactly what you describe, yet
> I don't see your robots.txt trying to stop them. So clearly your grasp
> of logic is lacking.

Google isn't doing that at all. It takes small bits and displays them
so that people can find my site. When clicking the link on Google,
people go to my site, not to a Google version of it. And if you mean
cached pages, it's only one page at a time, which very clearly states
that it is not the original page, it gives a link to the original, and
when clicking any link in the page itself, it's going to the original
site. That, plus everybody knows it's a search engine's search result.
Not so when you republish my site or feed on your own domain.

>>> Like it or not, you have to accept that the user can choose *whatever*
>>> template they like to view your XML.
>>
>> One user, yes. Republish for the rest of the world, no.
>
> Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing?

Please, don't try to diffuse the subject here.

> You're going to have to explain the material difference.

No, I'm not. I'll let you explain how a proxy is a website.

> From my perspective, it's is just a lot less
> bandwidth when my feed gets shared *regardless* of the technology
> involved.

Hey, if I'm letting you publish my entire site and people get to it
via Google, I'm also paying for less bandwidth, and have less
visitors. You make it sound like that's a good thing. It isn't.
My visitors are mine, not yours

>>> The only problem that comes into
>>> play is if a site attempts to use your feed content without attribution
>>> and/or pass it off as their own content.
>>
>> So you just put a one-liner at the top: "disclaimer: the content below
>> is not mine, but a mirror of http://blog.locusmeus.com/ ".
>> According to you that solves the copyright issue? Wouldn't think so,
>> really.
>
> I don't see you suing every spider on the planet to enforce your strange
> "zero links in" webmastering.

I have no strange 'zero links in' system. It's just what you portray
it to be. It's not. I love the traffic I get through Google. I'd take
measures against anyone who republishes my website though.

> Anyone using their brain

That includes me, whether you agree or not

> can see that not
> only is the purpose of a web site to draw visitors, but the further
> purpose of a feed is to draw readers to that same site *regardless* of
> how it gets displayed.

My feed *is* my site. In a different format. But on my own domain, for
my own visitors. What you seem to describe, is a totally different
thing, being a feed that is *intended* to be republished on other
sites, with just very short teasers with links to the full articles.
Not all feeds are like that, and just because both types of feeds use
XML, does not mean they're all up for grabs.

> Don't like it? Don't offer a feed.

Don't want me to steal your website's content and republish it? Don't
put it online. (that's your logic)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:11:55 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
and typed:

>
>Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing? You're going to have to explain
>the material difference.

I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the UK caching and
proxying are explicitly stated by copyright law to be non-infringing
use of the material. The reason why the law makes that exemption is
that, without it, proxies and caches would, indeed, be a breach of
copyright.

In the US, I would expect that proxies and caches are covered by "fair
use" provisions, so the outcome is the same - their use does not
infringe copyright. But that exemption doesn't necessarily apply to
other situations, and, in particular, republishing the content from an
RSS feed is a breach of copyright if done without permission (either
explicit or implied).

You are probably right to say that, in most cases, the presence of a
publicised RSS feed implies permission to republish the content of the
feed, since that's the normal use of RSS. However, such permission can
be withdrawn (or explicitly disallowed), so you can't assume that you
can always use the content of any RSS feed just because it's there.

Mark
--
Blog: http://Mark.Goodge.co.uk Photos: http://www.goodge.co.uk
"L'amore giunger, l'amore"
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:11:55 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing? You're going to have to explain
>> the material difference.
>
> I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the UK caching and
> proxying are explicitly stated by copyright law to be non-infringing
> use of the material. The reason why the law makes that exemption is
> that, without it, proxies and caches would, indeed, be a breach of
> copyright.
>
> In the US, I would expect that proxies and caches are covered by "fair
> use" provisions, so the outcome is the same - their use does not
> infringe copyright.

Funny thing about "fair use" - it isn't quite what people seem to think:
"The distinction between “fair use” and infringement may be unclear and
not easily defined. There is no specific number of words, lines, or
notes that may safely be taken without permission. Acknowledging the
source of the copyrighted material does not substitute for obtaining
permission." (http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html)

Claiming "Fair use" does NOT protect you against being sued. It only
offers an affirmative defense.

> But that exemption doesn't necessarily apply to
> other situations, and, in particular, republishing the content from an
> RSS feed is a breach of copyright if done without permission (either
> explicit or implied).
>
> You are probably right to say that, in most cases, the presence of a
> publicised RSS feed implies permission to republish the content of the
> feed, since that's the normal use of RSS. However, such permission can
> be withdrawn (or explicitly disallowed), so you can't assume that you
> can always use the content of any RSS feed just because it's there.

Very true. From the same page:
"When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted
material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would
clearly apply to the situation."

And even if you believe "Fair use" applies, the person whose feed you're
republishing can still sue you - and very well could win.

Seems to me the prudent course would be to only republish feeds that (a)
explicitly stated permission to republish or (b) you had obtained
specific permission to republish.

And, as a final note - if anyone REALLY wants to deal with anything like
this, you should probably talk to a copyright attorney.
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Mark Goodge wrote:
> On Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:11:55 -0600, Doc O'Leary put finger to keyboard
> and typed:
>
>> Is a caching HTTP proxy republishing? You're going to have to explain
>> the material difference.
>
> I don't know about the rest of the world, but in the UK caching and
> proxying are explicitly stated by copyright law to be non-infringing
> use of the material. The reason why the law makes that exemption is
> that, without it, proxies and caches would, indeed, be a breach of
> copyright.
>
> In the US, I would expect that proxies and caches are covered by "fair
> use" provisions, so the outcome is the same - their use does not
> infringe copyright. But that exemption doesn't necessarily apply to
> other situations, and, in particular, republishing the content from an
> RSS feed is a breach of copyright if done without permission (either
> explicit or implied).
>
> You are probably right to say that, in most cases, the presence of a
> publicised RSS feed implies permission to republish the content of the
> feed, since that's the normal use of RSS. However, such permission can
> be withdrawn (or explicitly disallowed), so you can't assume that you
> can always use the content of any RSS feed just because it's there.
>
> Mark

Mark,

At least in the U.S., the assumption is no permission to republish.
Permission must be explicitly granted.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.TakeThisOut@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Els wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
>> John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't grant
>>> you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the sort of
>>> copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow of the net."
>>>
>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it should
>> be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the ordinary
>> flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of any sane
>> webmaster that they will be processed and used in a non-specific
>> fashion.
>
> No it isn't. As far as I can see I'm entirely sane, and I'm not
> expecting a full republishing of my entire feed.
>
>> They will be incorporated into widgets, screensavers,
>> specialized readers, and monitoring software of all kinds.
>
> Not in other people's websites.
>
>> If you don't
>> like it, stop going to the extra effort of providing an XML file that
>> can easily be used for the purpose of it's design.
>
> That's the same as saying I shouldn't write a website in HTML if I
> don't want my content republished because it can be scraped too
> easily.
>
> XML is used so that subscribers can read my content in specialized
> readers, not so that you can republish it.
>

What if the specialized reader is, say, a Flash application built into
my web site? The Flash client is a browser in its own right, and any
application you write in it is running on the *users* computer, not the
internet... even if it is feeding off XML on your web site. So... fair
use? Or not...

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

Jerry Stuckle wrote:
> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber RemoveThis @130.133.1.4>,
>> John Bokma <john RemoveThis @castleamber.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet RemoveThis @1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>>>> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>
>>> From the summary:
>>>
>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't
>>> grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the
>>> sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow
>>> of the net."
>>>
>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>>
>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
>> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the
>> ordinary flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of
>> any sane webmaster that they will be processed and used in a
>> non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets,
>> screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software of all
>> kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort of
>> providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of it's
>> design.
>>
>
> How you feel is not the law. Els is correct in her statements.
>
> When an artistic work (including web pages, rss feeds, etc.) is created,
> the person creating it (or, in the case of an employee, the employer)
> has an implicit copyright to it. Other than fair use (i.e. quoting
> excerpts), you cannot copy or use it in any manner.
>
> Republishing a feed, even if it's a public feed, is a copyright
> violation and can be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.
>

Which is the huge flaw in all this "Web 2.0" stuff.

--

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

http://www.northleithmill.com

-.-

Kammy has a new home: http://www.bitesizedjapan.com
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

SpaceGirl wrote:
> Jerry Stuckle wrote:
>> Doc O'Leary wrote:
>>> In article <Xns9A3675CADE00Dcastleamber.RemoveThis@130.133.1.4>,
>>> John Bokma <john.RemoveThis@castleamber.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Doc O'Leary <droleary.usenet.RemoveThis@1q2008.subsume.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes. The thing you're missing is that a web site displaying a feed
>>>>> should be considered just another specialized browser or feed reader.
>>>> http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html
>>>>
>>>> From the summary:
>>>>
>>>> "Postings to the net are not granted to the public domain, and don't
>>>> grant you any permission to do further copying except perhaps the
>>>> sort of copying the poster might have expected in the ordinary flow
>>>> of the net."
>>>>
>>>> Law is not how you feel it should be.
>>>
>>> Funny, but what you quote indicates it is *exactly* how I feel it
>>> should be. Your eyes seems to have glazed over the "expected in the
>>> ordinary flow" part. For feeds, it is very much the expectation of
>>> any sane webmaster that they will be processed and used in a
>>> non-specific fashion. They will be incorporated into widgets,
>>> screensavers, specialized readers, and monitoring software of all
>>> kinds. If you don't like it, stop going to the extra effort of
>>> providing an XML file that can easily be used for the purpose of it's
>>> design.
>>>
>>
>> How you feel is not the law. Els is correct in her statements.
>>
>> When an artistic work (including web pages, rss feeds, etc.) is
>> created, the person creating it (or, in the case of an employee, the
>> employer) has an implicit copyright to it. Other than fair use (i.e.
>> quoting excerpts), you cannot copy or use it in any manner.
>>
>> Republishing a feed, even if it's a public feed, is a copyright
>> violation and can be subject to both civil and criminal penalties.
>>
>
> Which is the huge flaw in all this "Web 2.0" stuff.
>

And how is that? Nothing I know of in Web 2.0 violates copyright laws.
But then I don't know everything about Web 2.0.

--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex.RemoveThis@attglobal.net
==================
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright 

In article <60hrsjF1r9dh0U1.RemoveThis@mid.individual.net>,
SpaceGirl <nothespacegirlspam.RemoveThis@subhuman.net> wrote:

> What if the specialized reader is, say, a Flash application built into
> my web site? The Flash client is a browser in its own right, and any
> application you write in it is running on the *users* computer, not the
> internet... even if it is feeding off XML on your web site. So... fair
> use? Or not...

What would be the URL at which the user would read my content in your
Flash application on your site?

--
Els

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
 >> Stay informed about: Copyright