Handling Newsfeed Theft

[dvduval]

I found this interesting article about how one person was contacting people who were taking their rss feed and placing it on websites along side ads. They felt this was a definite infringement, and were sending copyright notices to the infringers. I'm of the opinion that by offering a feed, you are practically inviting people to come and copy your content. What do you think?

[Conficio]

Originally Posted by dvduval

I'm of the opinion that by offering a feed, you are practically inviting people to come and copy your content. What do you think?

Hi there,
what is your understanding of copyright?

As the word says it regulates the right to copy something. RSS feeds contain copyright elements and if the author of a feed reserves the copyright, he expressively does not "invite someone to copy content". Even if you don't expressively state your copyright, it is yours.

Take the case of a newspaper article, would you assume you can retype the article verbatim, just because the newspaper is sold in public or even given away on the street corner? I guess not! The owner of the copyright has the right to assign the right to copy his creation as he pleases.

Off course their is fair use in quoting or citing the work or compiling aggregations with excerpts (like search results) and copying the work for personal use (like making annotations on a copy).

I think the author of this blog is very well in his rights and protects his copyright accordingly.

K<o>

[subnet_rx]

then why offer a feed? There's no way your infringing copyrights if you put a small quote on your site with a link to the full article.

[nottheusual1]

One of the posters to his blog entry made a very valid point - ambiguity of terms and conditions of use and an incorrect "product" (the RSS feed) configuration made it difficult to understand the gravity of the situation.

More people need to think these things through prior to first incidence. The instant reaction is outrage, hence the knee jerk reaction.

Had the process been thought thru, his reaction would have been justified - but then the product wouldn't have allowed the copyright infringement - because it would have been a properly configured RSS digest for indirect public consumption and inbound linking.

How many hours could that have saved just in the first incident? About the same amount it would have taken to think the thing out....

[Conficio]

Originally Posted by subnet_rx

then why offer a feed? There's no way your infringing copyrights if you put a small quote on your site with a link to the full article.

Well, what you are describing is covered under "fair use". Therefore it does not infringe on the copyright of the author.

There are also other reasons, like RSS readers and aggregators, that allow an end-user to read the feed in a way they determine. Consider it the equivalent home-delivery of a news paper.

In addition you can use the full feed and re-publish, if you make legal arrangements with the source. Contact them, ask them for assigning some copyright to you (give them what they want in return - money, links, advertisement, big hug, ...) and you are in the clear.

K<o>

[Conficio]

Originally Posted by nottheusual1

One of the posters to his blog entry made a very valid point - ambiguity of terms and conditions of use and an incorrect "product" (the RSS feed) configuration made it difficult to understand the gravity of the situation.

I'm not an expert, but as I understand it copyright exists for everything you write and publish, even a letter to your mom, if it fulfills the requirements of some sort of artistic or creative work.

It is not necessary to mark the work as copywrited or add the usual phrase "<date> copyright by ... all rights reserved". However, it is a good idea to do so in order to proof that it is your work and when you created it. Just in case someone claims he/she wrote the work first and you copied it from him/her.

It is the obligation of the person re-publishing the work to check if he/she has the legal right to do so. If nothing is mentioned it is to be assumed that someone holds the copyright, even if it can't be determined who it is or how to contact this person. For example I read recently a story that Google would love to index books that have still copyright, but the copyright holder / author can't be found and it is unclear if the copyright has expired (death of author + 95 years).

Hope I could shed some more light on the subject

K<o>

[Amethyst]

I have mixed thoughts about this - I am not worried about anyone stealing my content - I am thinking that when I see my feed.rss on someone else's website and then it's in a scroller....above the scroller are the Amethyst's they want to sell...I can't tell if I feel used....or complimented that they would want to let me help them sell Amethysts. Either way, it's free advertisement.

Now there's something to think about....

*Amethyst**
[/img]

[xsurveys]

Ok - this is what I don't understand .... what's the purpose of a feed if the user can't use it.

Unless it's a feed allowed only for people with permission - but then access to the code to access feed should be limited by a password access of some sort ?

Furthermore - many feeds are tagged with links back to the feed owner's site? So if the feed is tagged what is the harm ? He should be getting links right ?

Yes - taking a feed without permission is unethical and wrong - and probably illegal. However - leaving a feed to be taken is also kind of silly ? If you leave a BMW with the doors open and a key in the ignition..... it's partly your fault if it gets stolen.

I hope I'm making sense ... hehe and not just sounding too blonde :)

[nottheusual1]

Originally Posted by Conficio

It is the obligation of the person re-publishing the work to check if he/she has the legal right to do so. If nothing is mentioned it is to be assumed that someone holds the copyright, even if it can't be determined who it is or how to contact this person.

K<o>

In a perfect world, maybe - but when two parties who may/may not be clear on the fine print collide, sparks errupt. Offering an RSS feed defines the "fair use" portion of the requirement. Not reigning in fair use by qualifying it with terms and conditions of use set's up for the confusion part.

My point was that with a little bit of forethought, all this could have been avoided. The pervasive nature of instant publishing requires that BOTH the producer and consumer be more attentive to the details, and in this case, neither were. Both are caught up in the fad - amateurs in a professional realm.

While it's way cool to live in the blogosphere and all the ego-pumping things seeing your "name in lights" does for you, it does not absolve you from dealing with the details. The author's mistake was a "freshman" one - look at all the professionally produced blogs/political commentary sites and you'll see homework done and executed - there is no doubt in your mind how you can/can't use the content.

The publisher's reaction was to instantly attack - an emotional reaction. If you read the replies to the blog entries, he later understands the shortcomings of his product offerings and is making changes to make them more palletable to consumers.

My reply wasn't about copyright - it was about jumping into a business not well understood, and the resultant product offering that was not adequate for the marketplace, because nobody understood how it was supposed to be used.

Assume nothing in business should be the doggy-bag for this one. xsurveys view is quite "non-blonde" in this respect, and I agree. The hair-splitting takes you to court, getting it right to begin with avoids that issue.

[Conficio]

nottheusual1,
you bring up lots of good points. I have to admit that I didn't read the comments on his blog and might not have gotten the full story.He might have quite some room for improvement.

However, as you point out, the legal responsibility is squarely with the person re-using someone else's property. This is true with the BMW with the keys in the ignition (I know some judges disagree) and even more so with the publishing of creative work in what ever form.

I take it that the matter has usually been settled with this author before it goes to court.

Bottom line, I agree if you publish and value your copyright, you should make it clear how you allow use of the published texts and how you want it to be syndicated (because that is what RSS is ultimately for).

Lots of lime light on you!!

K<o>

[Conficio]

Originally Posted by xsurveys

Ok - this is what I don't understand .... what's the purpose of a feed if the user can't use it.

I think there are different categories of users

• a single reader, that is the intend of publishing it in the first place
• an aggregator, someone offering a software or website or other service to aggregate the feeds to one, that might be o.k. if their is no further context. Such as MyYahoo aggregating together with advertising, beyond a small headline or excerpt.
• Someone quiting or citing the text that is fair use
• Someone re-publishing the the text as a whole, needs a permission.

Passwords make no sense for the last case, because the other cases need access to the material. Compare it to the physical world. Everybody can read a newspaper, magazine, book. However nobody can re-print the article/chapter verbatim, even an article about your business for marketing purposes.

Hope I could clarify things for you.

K<o>

[nottheusual1]

Originally Posted by Conficio

However nobody can re-print the article/chapter verbatim, even an article about your business for marketing purposes.

Props on the last reply - good explanation of the "users".

Businesses dealing in the publishing realm have created a licensing process via re-prints, etc., to facilitate requests for content. Licensing was thought thru and a practice implemented.

We are just starting to see the tip of the iceberg of legal issues surrounding the blogosphere - people of nefarious intent are just learning how to use them to make money.

There will be predation, too - how do you enforce US copyright laws on the "aggregation" crowd when they are located in a country that already has state-sponsored spam farms (a few come to mind in the 211.xx.xx.xxx IP block)?

Implicit licensing for digest feeds and explicit licensing (with an enforceable "by IP" function) for non-summarized content? Digest/headline feeds only?

Authors need the ounce-of-prevention attitude. If you are going to be offended by a particular "use" of your product, plan to prevent it. Basic product design, no matter what the industry.

Hopefully, at some near-future point, there will be a good boilerplate T&C developed and a concensus "product" descriptors set for blogging - much like the cookie-cutter legal pages you see on most Web sites.

:not_the_usual1
[you decide]

[incrediblehelp]

Doesn't RSS stand for RDF Site Summary or Real Simple SYNDICATION

Definition of Syndication:

The process by which a web site is able to share information, such as articles, with other web sites.

What is the puzzle here?

[Conficio]

Originally Posted by incrediblehelp

Doesn't RSS stand for RDF Site Summary or Real Simple SYNDICATION

Definition of Syndication:

The process by which a web site is able to share information, such as articles, with other web sites.

What is the puzzle here?

Hi Jaan,
as you point out the meaning of the acronym is ambiguous and even if it clearly talks about syndication, it does include tags that regulate the copyright of it.

After all syndication is not as simple as the technology makes it. One still has to respect the copyright of the piece.

K<o>

[incrediblehelp]

Originally Posted by Conficio

After all syndication is not as simple as the technology makes it. One still has to respect the copyright of the piece.

So your robots text file for all your websites look like this right:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /

[nottheusual1]

OK - CNET is good at publishing things, as that is how they make their money, right?

This link talks about their RSS feeds and what constitutes fair use:

http://www.cnet.com/4520-6022-5115113.html

Read the right-hand column from top to bottom. See - they put the time into it to make it easy for users to benefit from their product.

Message stays the same - they did their homework FIRST so it does become a really simple copyright issue if their product is mis-used or abused.

If you hang crap out there that people can steal, they will, so why do it to begin with?

PREVENTION vs CURE = $$ vs $$$$$$$$$ - you choose.

BTW - the RSS specification is a technical/mechanical thing, so the title is "acronymous" and really has no meaning beyond what it states. It's geek-speak, not descriptive beyond the delivery technology.