The Inquisitr - Latest Comments in When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 05:15:54 -0000

I said: "Certainly we can all agree that Google or Internet Archive != fav.or.it"

You responded: "Sure, in the sense that the former is actually a far more egregious abuse of the sort of formalist copyright policy you're advocating."

Obviously, we must be talking past each other because I couldn't disagree more with your interpretation of my position. :)

In any case, the sentence that followed caught my attention:

"Unlike HTML, RSS was specifically designed to enable content from one site to be displayed on another. By publishing a feed, you are explicitly opting into that ecosystem."

Which begs the question, what ecosystem are we talking about? Splogs? Services that scrape full feeds? Except for the owners of such services, I know of very few people who want to be part of that ecosystem.

Most folks when they publish feeds believe they can (1) let users read their content in feed readers and/or (2) if they're lucky enough, get picked up by services like Google News (which display short summaries, not full text).

They're not opting into some ecosystem where they provide their full content free of charge for would-be competitors.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

rogerben — Fri, 20 Jun 2008 02:54:39 -0000

"Certainly we can all agree that Google or Internet Archive != fav.or.it"

Sure, in the sense that the former is actually a far more egregious abuse of the sort of formalist copyright policy you're advocating. Unlike HTML, RSS was specifically designed to enable content from one site to be displayed on another. By publishing a feed, you are explicitly opting into that ecosystem. When Google or the Archive create copies and derivatives of HTML content, they require an opt-out, even though they're using that HTML in ways not intended.

Again, this doesn't mean that I advocate a "screw y'all, I'm gonna do as I please" approach. I simply insist that responsibility must be taken on both sides. I launched a (wholly unsuccessful) fav.or.it-ish service years ago, and I followed a series of very simple rules in handling content:

(1) Used "noindex,follow" on all pages containing feed content.

(2) Always checked robots.txt, and respected it.

(3) Looked for atom:summary elements, and when available, used then instead of atom:content. (This is a huge problem with RSS 2.0, and I would urge anyone with copyright concerns to switch their feed types ASAP.)

(4) Provided a consistent user-agent string with all requests, so the app could be easily blocked at the web server.

(5) Didn't run ads on any page containing feed data.

As far as I can tell, fav.or.it, doesn't do at least four of those five things to ensure that it is behaving responsibly. So I've got no problem with people complaining about them. But I *do* object to a lot of black-and-white thinking being injected into a debate that should have moved past such stuff a long time ago.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 21:33:47 -0000

Certainly we can all agree that Google or Internet Archive != fav.or.it

That point aside, this is precisely the reason that copyright law protects the content creator by default. Copyright doesn't protect a third party's right (fav.or.it, etc) to go scrape a site's content and reuse it freely unless the site says they can't. Copyright protects the creator's right to their content unless the site explicitly says that a third party can use it (and under what conditions).

Copyright does not place the obligation on the content creator to op-out their site of every service or group of services out there that wants to expropriate their content.

Now, re: Google Cache. The web has certainly created new mechanisms that the law is still grappling with.

In 2006 a district court here in the US sided with Google's ability to cache web pages, in Belgium a year later the court there sided against Google's interests.

In the US case one of the factors was that Google makes no money from their cache, as well as the fact (I would argue) that the judge didn't seem to understand some of the finer technical aspects of web caching. [decision here]

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

rogerben — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 20:49:45 -0000

On the web, things work both ways. If you don't want Google or the Internet Archive crawling and caching your site, you have to tell them. If you don't want someone using your syndication feed to republish your content, you need to tell them.

Constantly turning this into a "my rights vs. your rights" battle achieves nothing. If everyone involved will take a bare minimum of responsibility for their part in the online publication lifecycle, the issue goes away.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:49:22 -0000

rogerben: Interesting idea, but it still runs into the fundamental problem that Duncan outlined -- copyright protection is not an opt-out/opt-in mechanism. Copyright automatically protects the content creator upon creation, not upon opting in or out of a third party standard.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

digitalbiographer — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:15:23 -0000

I've read what you said about AP, and I think I remotely understand the difference between personal and commercial use. I may even closely understand it.

I'm only now aware that Fav.or.it run ads surrounding OPC (other peoples content). My browser plugin kindly disappeared those ads, so I do now see your point now in the context of fav.or.it monetising full feeds - that's very different.

However, I think your comment got truncated up there somehow Duncan, so I'll stop here.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

rogerben — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 14:09:55 -0000

Nick: Fixing this problem is very simple, using a method I've been advocating in the syndication community for years.

(1) Tell Duncan (and all other publishers) the user-agent string your service uses when fetching feeds.

(2) Check robots.txt before fetching each feed.

(3) If your user-agent is disallowed, either refuse to fetch the feed, or fetch it and truncate the content.

Many folks don't want anything to do with Creative Commons licenses, but pretty much anyone concerned about republication rights can upload a text file to their webroot.

Ideally, you and the folks behind other, similar services would all get together and agree to look for a "universal" user-agent in robots.txt... say, for example, "rssatomfetch". That would give site owners an easy, one-time mod to control how their posts are treated across all services. And it would bring an end to the endless "is this a splog or isn't it?" debates, since anyone ignoring robots.txt would be automatically considered a bad actor.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

chrisbaskind — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 12:15:21 -0000

Duncan, you're taking unfair abuse for your position. Whether or not Fav.or.it is a "splog" really doesn't matter, but taking full content without the expressed consent of the copyright holder is crap. It's further compounded by Fav.or.it's arrogant and coercive insistence that copyright holders submit to a Creative Commons license to avoid further infringement upon their work.

Fav.or.it's pleading that they are "adding value" to the original work or "engaging a new audience" on behalf of the blogosphere is laughably irrelevant. They don't own the copyrighted content, so they don't get to make that judgment.

That Google Reader makes full feeds available is a defense (and a poor one, at that), not a license. That the Associated Press has seemingly gone mad and decided to unilaterally redefine the polite conventions sometimes described as Fair Use is another issue altogether.

I have tremendous respect for Robert Scoble, but just because he finds benefit to having his full content reproduced without permission -- or simply doesn't care to enforce his rights -- doesn't mean the same situation works for another publisher.

Fav.or.it is quite attractive, and I like the idea of making it easy for people outside the blogging loop to read and enjoy blogs. I'm not sure references to the original work are explicit enough -- the inconspicuous link icon isn't likely to be understood by the non-technical audience Fav.or.it claims to be targeting -- but I'd feel a lot better about things if they'd secure permission for full feeds as the law and common courtesy require. They should otherwise stick to excerpts.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:43:26 -0000

Digital Biographer
read what I've said about AP. Read what I've said here. Do you even remotely understand the difference between personal and commercial use? I do not grant the right for other publishers to reprint my content in full for commerical benefit on their sites without obtaining my permission first. Full stop. Basic copyright law and the default position I might add unless you opt out. I do however, in publishing a full feed grant permission for the readers of this site to read this content for their personal use in widgets or in a feed reader. Indeed anyone who offers a RSS feed basically does. FOR PERSONAL USE.

Walled garden? WTF are you taking? The conversation has moved on to many places, but the last time I looked that doesn't mean content creat

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:34:44 -0000

seriously, it takes a leach to support one. Tell me: government welfare?

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:33:32 -0000

Andy
I'd be thrilled if extracts of my content were displayed on Favorit with appropriate links back as well...but not even this is happening there. Internal link schemes with no clear linking back when I was on the site yesterday. Favorit is a bad neighbor in a bad space.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:25:26 -0000

Robert
how does it push traffic back exactly? They reprint (not in all cases, but a lot) full articles then capture a conversation around that content all within their site. The links to the name of the blog links back to another page on Favorit, as does the name of the blog title. The only links back to the blog are little tiny boxes that most people will never notice. So not only are they stealing content, they're also purposely not even being a little bit fair with it with clear links back to the source.

It also has a world of difference to Google Reader. Ever see an ad on Google Reader? Google News? Google wouldn't dare because the moment they started commercializing the display of that content they'd spend the next 100 years in court. Generally speaking a big firewall service like Google Reader is considered personal use and it is agreed in part that by publishing a full feed we (as content owners) extend rights for that content to be viewed for personal use in something like Google Reader. We bloody well don't give rights to people like Favorit to reprint that content on a public site then try and build a business around it.

Robert: look more carefully, then go speak to a copyright lawyer and get them to explain the differences. No one is saying Google Reader should exist, but I am saying that reprinting articles in full for commercial gain is wrong, both morally and under copyright law. If anything I, and others sit in the middle when it comes to copyright. If Nick switched to extracts only today then got permission or cut deals to include some full content I'd change my tune tomorrow. He doesn't get the right to print ANYONES full content for commercial use then tells them to opt out they have to adopt CC. That is probably the worst aspect of the lot. Copyright is presumed to be in place first, not the other way around. It needs to be opt-in, not opt-out

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:17:38 -0000

Nick
utter bollocks. Google Reader presents content for private use and to date they've never once tried to sell ads off it for the same reason they dont sell ads around Google News: copyright. You a taking other people's content and building a business around that without giving anything in return, you a reprinting other peoples content for commercial gain and without permission: that's copyright theft.

If you want to compare your model to anyone, the best comparison is Topix, who DON'T reprint articles in full unless they obtain a license to do so. Fair use only extends to a point, you dont have fair use when you are reprinting these posts in full and without permission

There's nothing positive about stealing peoples content Nick and leaching off the hard work of others. If you had any morals what so ever you'd take down all full content and switch to an extract model only and then ask content owners for permission to republish their works. That's not just the moral thing to do: THATS THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT AS WELL!!!!

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

duncanriley — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 10:12:58 -0000

Steven, correct, and in most civilized circles that's called stealing. If we all adopted this stand the product of quality content online would quickly dry up.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

Steven Finch — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 09:07:48 -0000

What I really dont like about sites like this is the fact that they use the content of each blog, then turn it into their own page, so the actual blog and story doesnt get any traffic from the site. So there better be some benefit in terms of link juice or it is just another complete waste of time!

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

digitalbiographer — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 08:58:24 -0000

So they do slap ads around the content. My mistake. Fav.or.it are therefore evil.

But why would I want to turn off Adblock?

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 23:44:04 -0000

Nick,

I agree with you that Duncan focused on the negative of fav.or.it, and to be honest the aspect of reusing content without permission was what caught my attention as well when I visited the site earlier today.

Nevertheless, the site is attractive and could be useful. There is certainly space for such a service on the web, but with a couple caveats. Content creators must be able to opt-in to:

- provide full content
- own the comments to their content (otherwise comments aren't allowed)
- participate in monetization of their content (otherwise ads aren't displayed)

I know that getting buy-in from content creators would be a struggle for such a service as fav.or.it, but that is the cost of running such a service: you can't bite the hand that feeds you (the content creators).

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:57:29 -0000

Thanks, Allen.

These are my first comments using Disqus (and first time commenting here on Inquisitr for that matter). I just noticed that the "em" italics show up fine on Inquisitr but not back on the Disqus site. Odd!

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

allen stern — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:49:45 -0000

perfectly said bocajuniors.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:23:47 -0000

Yeah, if we follow the strictest letter of the law of Copyright no one should reprint full-text posts. But if that were the case then Google Reader wouldn't be allowed to exist...

All due respect, you couldn't be more wrong.

The problem is that with the relatively new internet distribution method of RSS, the legal rules governing third-party distribution is a bit murky (at least in the United States). In other mediums the rules are quite clear and have established legal precedent.

For example, if I want to tape an episode of ABC's hit show Lost and watch it later, then that is fine. In fact, if I invite a couple friends over to watch an episode with me, that's perfectly legal as well. However, if I setup a business to make money from rebroadcasting these shows to the public (renting time on a public access cable channel, selling ads that replace ABC's ads, hosting an after-episode round table discussion on Lost mythology, etc)...then I'm in some legal hot water unless I get ABC's permission beforehand. Just because ABC broadcast Lost in a manner that made it super-duper-easy to syndicate doesn't mean that I get to "add value" and then make money from their content. Whining about how my round table discussion "added important value and facilitated conversation" won't prevent a court from siding with ABC.

Similarly, until now the prevalent netiquette has been that using a site's full feed in my own feedreader is okey-dokey (and encouraged!). But it is rude/bad/"evil" to reuse that site's full feed and display it on my publicly available site (especially if I am attempting to make money off it).

Whether the generally accepted principal of netiquette is adopted as legal precedent is yet to be seen. But if I had to guess, the courts will follow the generally accepted guidelines that govern analogous mediums.

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:57:47 -0000

"The bottom line is when you read your 'full content' in google reader that is no different to viewing it in the format we show it on fav.or.it..."

Really? Really?

'Cause I can't do that with my personal feeds inside Google Reader...

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

BocaJuniors — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:55 -0000

"In Fav.or.it, there are no ads slapped around your content..."

Turn off your Adblock Plus plugin.

Here is what I'm seeing right now:

This post from Mashable is displaying an Adsense banner for Flock to the right of the content and wider banner below it.

This post from Think Progress is displaying an Adsense banner for "free credit reports" to the right of the content and Adsense text ads below it.

And this post from Techcrunch is displaying Adsense text ads to the right of the content and below it.

I could go on, but you get the point. Go to any "post" on fav.or.it and you get ads "slapped around your content."

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

allen stern — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:47:59 -0000

Robert - I believe you are wrong and I agree with Duncan. Look at this example - http://fav.or.it/post/115615 - what value has favorit added? None. Not only do they take the entire article, they are monetizing the content as if it was their own. There's a tiny link to the source (in this case mashable) but otherwise it looks like favorit created this content - which they didnt. Let's not even get into yet another place that has comments. Their tagline is "bringing blogging to the masses" - really have no idea what this means.

You (or favorit) cannot compare this to any news reader - I am offering you as an individual to read my content through your news reader. I am in no way shape or form allowing these scrapers, spblogs whatever you want to call them, the right to take my content and profit off of it.

It reminds me of the people in nyc who try to sell you a fake dvd copy for $5. Pretty close.

You want to provide a snippet - fine. Favorit makes it seem to the untrained eye that they content is their own.

Robert - we already know how you feel about stealing - you leave your front door open with a sign that says "come in take whatever you want its all free" :)

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

digitalbiographer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 19:31:33 -0000

Thanks Robert, eloquently and concisely put. Having checked the definition and current use of the term splog with a few different sources - it certainly does not stretch to include what fav.or.it is doing.

Like Google Reader, fav.or.it is bringing readers - and a lot of non-geek readers at that, who quite rightly don't give a hoot what RSS stands for. You know what to do if you don't want those readers, but if you're publishing online - what on earth DO you want if it's not people reading your content?

I can't really believe the term 'reprint' is used in this context - or maybe we've not come such a long way since the printing press was invented?

Re: When Did Splogging Become a Business Model? Fav.or.it

Scobleizer — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 17:46:02 -0000

Duncan is too strict on this issue. A splog is someone who copies every single post and that tries to represent that as being original content. I have lots of sploggers copying my stuff and it adds no value. Fav.or.it adds a lot of value, doesn't copy every post, and pushes traffic back to original source. Yeah, if we follow the strictest letter of the law of Copyright no one should reprint full-text posts. But if that were the case then Google Reader wouldn't be allowed to exist and I get a HUGE amount of value out of that. So, if you want to be an online publisher you should be a little more open to reprinting of your content than Duncan is. Strict copyrightationalists will ruin the utility that the syndication system has built up for readers. If that happens it'd be a damn shame. There is a line, though, and I'd support Duncan if he went after real sploggers. Fav.or.it isn't even close to a real splog and it really does us all a disservice when Duncan stretches the term to include sites that aren't splogs.