14 comments

• 

  Tyler

  1 year ago

  good post duncan
  reply
• 

  Scobleizer

  1 year ago

  Here's my answer Duncan: http://friendfeed.com/e/c3d7f40c-e33c-400c-8333...
  reply
• 

  Benjamin Golub

  1 year ago

  I'm not entirely confinced about the legal precedence but for now will not enable full content on the site. Thanks for doing this Duncan.
  reply
• 

  Phil Glockner

  1 year ago

  Thanks for taking the time out to put together this screencast, Duncan. I really liked this video on a couple of different levels.
  
  First, you have a demonstrably comprehensive knowledge of copyright and how it applies to electronic media. I definitely learned a few things, and I appreciate being able to see how you back up your points with sites that you researched.
  
  Second, it's really nice to put a voice (and face, in the case of the seesmic video you did today) to the author here. I'm not usually one to promote promiscuous use of video commenting (although, I do have it enabled on my blog, not that anyone has used it yet)... but personally, I do think it brings more to the conversation when someone is able to present their ideals logically, concisely and clearly, like you have done here. Thanks.
  reply
• 

  gregory

  1 year ago

  get the fucking favorit olympus camera ad screen off the video .... bastards
  reply
• 

  Ryo

  1 year ago

  So, what do you want then?
  Shutting down Google reader and GMail?
  Or just wanna squeeze more money out of articles?
  
  See, i give out my content under the terms of the Creative Commons License by-sa. So, feel free to make money with my articles as long as you give me attribution. With that, I get a lot of visitors, which might give me money, on my ads.
  
  The whole Internet is based on that kind of business model. Big companies are giving out stuff for "free". like Google does with their services, where thousands of people get paid. If you deny them to make money with ads, there is only one conclusion. They must make pay-services. So do you really want to pay for everything on the Internet.
  You might have the money, but others don't. You would hut down a whole industry.
  
  So, if you don't like how the Internet works, you should not publish content there, or make a closed access site, without RSS and with a monthly fee (like some newspaper did). Otherwise, it's like you get out, say something on the street, and then trying to get money from one who repeat it.
  reply
• 

  Duncan Riley

  1 year ago

  Ryo
  typical splogger line: if you don't want it ripped, don't put it out there. And you obviously didn't watch the video either. Google reader is personal use and uses feeds in that context. by publishing a feed we are offering personal use of that feed, we are NOT offering commercial use unless specified. If you've got a CC license that allows that, great, but I'd note that YOU GAVE PERMISSION, where as these scum bags take the content without even asking. Permission for commercial use must be obtained, it's not a given that it exists already
  reply
• 

  rogerben

  1 year ago

  PREFACE: I am not defending fav.or.it or splogging. Wrapping ads around foreign content is a bad thing. Allowing your aggregated pages to be indexed by search engines is a bad thing. The end.
  
  Duncan: Now then... you're missing some important points that make your, um... emphatic arguments a bit over-the-top. First, is that copyright law does *not* (in the U.S.) allow for unfettered personal use. For example, in the Betamax case, it was established that time shifting of broadcast content was allowed, but not archiving. In other words, that thing that Google Reader does? A clear violation of copyright. Given that you just declared GReader okey-dokey, you might want to dial back the certainty and righteous indignation.
  
  Also bear in mind that GReader (and every other responsible feed-related service) does a lot of content modification. They're not just displaying full content... they *modifying* that content by cleaning/stripping style attributes, scripts, and so on. In other words, creating derivative works. Something that, another technical copyright no-no.
  
  It's also worth pointing out that your declaration that you can only get to GReader data by logging in is incorrect. GReader provides public feeds, which is how RSSmeme got the data they were working with. (Odd that no one threatened to sue the Big G, where the money actually lives.)
  
  SUMMARY: The web is more complex than existing copyright law. I suffered my first site-scrape in '99, and I hated it as much then as your do now. We're really on the same page... I'm just not crazy about how you keep acting as if this is a simple matter, and anyone who disagrees with your conclusions is a splogger.
  
  Second, IMO, the implied license for RSS is clear... you put it in the feed, it's cool to republish it. The core purpose of RSS *is* republishing, even if it has been adopted for other uses. Again, I'm not saying that the implied license frees you to wrap ads around republished content or engage in any other extracurricular activity. But that core notion needs to be preserved and understood.
  reply
• 

  Sebastian

  1 year ago

  Copyright law doesn't allow personal use - you're right. But offering RSS, and that's accepted common sense, allows to consume content differently, as long as it's for personal use. That does NOT mean that one can republish the content in any way they want.
  
  Google Reader's Shared Item Feeds are something that's pushing the boundaries - they take publicly available feeds and "repackage" them, in a semi-public way. They act legally, because they don't put ads up, don't provide a directory of shared-items-feeds that can be scanned easily and don't allow the shared items-feeds to be indexed. (Although I was shocked to find out that Yahoo doesn't respect the robots.txt on www.google.com, that disallows indexing anything in the "reader/"-subfolder.)
  ReadBurner and RSSmeme act legally, because they index the feeds, but only show a quote of the article (RSSmeme just changed that a few days ago). They are of course perfectly legally putting ads beside the _quotes_, because that's not a matter of personal use, but fair use of content.
  
  The implied license for RSS is not that it can be republished in any way, and the core purpose is NOT republishing. The idea behind RSS was, to provide an easier way to track and read content - through RSS-readers - for personal use. But that core notion needs to be preserved and understood.
  reply
• 

  Steve

  1 year ago

  You claim AP's position is extreme, but do not explain why.
  
  It is quite reasonable for AP to submit that readers gain most of the benefit of their articles from the title or a one or two line summary. AP goes to great pains and expense to ensure most of the information contained in their articles is available in the title and a short paragraph or two.
  
  That is why fair use guidelines are vague. Using a strict word counts would not protect AP's content, a haiku, etc.
  reply
• 

  Duncan Riley

  1 year ago

  AP wants to charge for the use of 5 words...that is extreme when fair use dictates that a reasonable portion of text can be reprinted. Note: not an entire story, but an extract. Sure, the exact number isn't defined under law, but AP doesn't get to say it's less than 5 words.
  reply
• 

  Nick Halstead

  1 year ago

  You really are fighting with the wrong people Duncan, you don't seem to get the idea that legally what we are doing is no different to what google reader/bloglines is doing. In fact we are doing something way ahead of everyone else in that we support creative commons licenses and so if you can put up a full feed and then add a CC license and we will abide by that. Does google reader or any other reader do that? no. Just because we are presenting the content in a more traditional format in the attempt to bring in a more broad demographic you suddenly think we are stealing content, its a ridiculus argument.
  
  Have I had Mike Arrington on the phone because we are republishing his content? No, because we show the adverts he chooses to monetize his feed with. Plus unlike any platform in the world, the attention that we give via comments is pushed back to his blog. Do you see friendfeed etc doing this? no! they are stealing attention away and nobody has a problem, I cannot frankly believe you are calling us a walled garden, when we have one of the most open and advanced platforms out there.
  
  You obviously have some kind of axe to grind, but frankly you are barking up the wrong tree. And you are am afraid in a minority here, go play with AP who seem to live in the past like you.
  reply
• 

  Duncan Riley

  1 year ago

  Nick
  you are nothing more than a leach who is so inept you have to steal from others to create a business. There is a world of difference between personal and commercial use of data, under law, and it takes 5 seconds on Google for a retarded 2 year old to find that distinction, something you're completely incapable of. There is also a world of difference between fair use (extract) and full scale copyright infringement.
  
  As for an axe to grind, my only axe is with scumbags like you who steal from others then put a 2.0 label on the product and call everyone who calls you out as being copyright nazis in bed with AP. You sir are scum.
  reply
• 

  Sebastian

  1 year ago

  Nick,
  what you said is ridiculous.
  
  Your usage of other people's content is not "personal use", but commercial, because you take advantage of the content differently than GReader does. GReader shows content to me, and only to me, whereas you take away the SEO juice from the websites that created the websites originally. This is clearly commercial use, because you do more than just showing content to visitors. You take advantage of the content to get more users yourself, even moving away attention from the original blogs completely.
  Your back-links are a shame, and you know that exactly.
  
  The issue around building communities around comments is a completely different - it's a moral issue. Yes, it's a problem for bloggers that comments are spread all over the web now. That started long ago with Digg (although nobody ever complained, because they prominently link back - different than you). They still link back more prominently than you do.
  The thing is though: It's a moral issue, not a legal issue.
  
  You keep the content, you keep the SEO-juice, you keep the page views, you don't link back. (The links are a joke.) Your whole website wouldn't survive a court, even if a sane judge would rule for "common sense".
  
  Claiming that this is the same like AP wanting to charge $12.5 for 5 quoted words is ridiculous, and if you don't know that, you honestly shouldn't be an entrepreneur.
  There is a big difference between fair use, personal use and stealing content.
  
  But then again, your business is basically a splog - I don't expect you to agree with common sense.
  reply