Does RSS Imply Permission To Reuse Content? - GoFuckYourself.com

baddog · 11-04-2006, 12:11 PM

I didn't write this, but thought it was worth presenting to the GFY world.

With the advent of the RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds,
copyright law got a lot trickier. Labeled "really simple stealing"
by AOL's Jason Calacanis, there is still no clear-cut legal
precedent about implied consent to repurpose syndicated content,
but the legal system that protects search engines may also
green-light spammy content aggregators.

Here's the predicament:

A content provider distributes his or her content through the use of
an RSS feed. This feed is open to any who would subscribe. The first
question is: Is there an implied consent to repurpose that material
by republishing it (with proper credit) on a blog or Website? The
act of syndicating (distributing) content may imply that
permission.

The second question is: How are splogs (spam blogs) that are set up
as aggregators of content to attract keyword-driven traffic, that
publish only the headline and snippet of text, that link out to the
original source, and that make money from AdSense different from
Google and other search engines? Doesn't Google do, essentially, the
same thing?

The short answer is that the legal system hasn't really decided for
certain.

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 12:13 PM

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737

baddog · 11-04-2006, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737

Let's see who gets more views/replies

Vendzilla · 11-04-2006, 12:29 PM

and I wonder how 2257 comes into effect?

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Let's see who gets more views/replies

Are you kidding? I'd lose that battle to the klik revenue vermin.

Agent 488 · 11-04-2006, 12:37 PM

a couple off the top of my head:

- copyright law remains the same no matter what medium. despite what the splog software makers tell potential customers, putting a feed on a site without the explicit permission of the owner IS theft.

- fair use is negated by monetization.

- funny how people blow a gasket over guba round here but suck the cum stained sacks of those who make the splogware.

- sploggers no better than spammers imho.

baddog · 11-04-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

a couple off the top of my head:

- copyright law remains the same no matter what medium. despite what the splog software makers tell potential customers, putting a feed on a site without the explicit permission of the owner IS theft.

Just wondering if you have any idea of what RSS is for. If it was meant to get explicit permission, why would they offer it at all?

baddog · 11-04-2006, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

and I wonder how 2257 comes into effect?

That was a joke, right?

Agent 488 · 11-04-2006, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Just wondering if you have any idea of what RSS is for. If it was meant to get explicit permission, why would they offer it at all?

most people offer it to use in readers like bloglines or whatever - not to be scraped and monetized -

obviously someone is trying to rationalize a new shitwork of splogs coming to clog google and make it even less relevant than it is now.

baddog · 11-04-2006, 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

most people offer it to use in readers like bloglines or whatever - not to be scraped and monetized -

obviously someone is trying to rationalize a new shitwork of splogs coming to clog google and make it even less relevant than it is now.

Sounds like some blogs took your SERP.

DaddyHalbucks · 11-04-2006, 02:12 PM

It's a great question. Let's hope most people can navigate the issue outside of a court room.

Agent 488 · 11-04-2006, 02:15 PM

here is a better thread on the matter:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737

$5 submissions · 11-04-2006, 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

The short answer is that the legal system hasn't really decided for
certain.

The other short answer is it's going to be a bitch for the person unlucky enough to become the "test case" for this.

mikeyddddd · 11-04-2006, 02:52 PM

Many of the feeds state that they are "free of charge to use for individuals and non-profit organizations for non-commercial use". I would think you should stay away from those.

The others appear to be available for use provided there is credit and a link back given.

OzMan · 11-04-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikeyddddd

Many of the feeds state that they are "free of charge to use for individuals and non-profit organizations for non-commercial use". I would think you should stay away from those.

The others appear to be available for use provided there is credit and a link back given.

On the contrary, that is the standard disclaimer on most mainstream news feeds which are gobbled up by 99% of lazy adsense sploggers without any complaints

Vendzilla · 11-04-2006, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

That was a joke, right?

Pretty much! LOL

11-04-2006, 12:11 PM	#1
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Does RSS Imply Permission To Reuse Content? I didn't write this, but thought it was worth presenting to the GFY world. With the advent of the RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, copyright law got a lot trickier. Labeled "really simple stealing" by AOL's Jason Calacanis, there is still no clear-cut legal precedent about implied consent to repurpose syndicated content, but the legal system that protects search engines may also green-light spammy content aggregators. Here's the predicament: A content provider distributes his or her content through the use of an RSS feed. This feed is open to any who would subscribe. The first question is: Is there an implied consent to repurpose that material by republishing it (with proper credit) on a blog or Website? The act of syndicating (distributing) content may imply that permission. The second question is: How are splogs (spam blogs) that are set up as aggregators of content to attract keyword-driven traffic, that publish only the headline and snippet of text, that link out to the original source, and that make money from AdSense different from Google and other search engines? Doesn't Google do, essentially, the same thing? The short answer is that the legal system hasn't really decided for certain.

11-04-2006, 12:13 PM	#2
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737 __________________ This is me on facebook This is me on twitter

11-04-2006, 12:29 PM	#4
Vendzilla Biker Gnome Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: cell#324 Posts: 23,200	and I wonder how 2257 comes into effect? __________________ Webair died? Carbon is not the problem, it makes up 0.041% of our atmosphere , 95% of that is from Volcanos and decomposing plants and stuff. So people in the US are responsible for 13% of the carbon in the atmosphere which 95% is not from Humans, like cars and trucks and stuff and they want to spend trillions to fix it while Solar Panel plants are powered by coal plants think about that

11-04-2006, 02:12 PM	#11
DaddyHalbucks A freakin' legend! Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Las Vegas, Nevada USA Posts: 18,975	It's a great question. Let's hope most people can navigate the issue outside of a court room. __________________ Boner Money

11-04-2006, 02:52 PM	#14
mikeyddddd Viva la vulva! Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: you can't please everyone, so you got to please yourself Posts: 16,557	Many of the feeds state that they are "free of charge to use for individuals and non-profit organizations for non-commercial use". I would think you should stay away from those. The others appear to be available for use provided there is credit and a link back given. __________________ AdultStarProfits AmbyaCash AnilosCash AzianiGold ColdHardCash FlashTheMoney IdolBucks MediumPimpin NSCash Nubiles PussyCash ScoreCash Sextronix SpunkyCash TubeTitans Twistys

11-04-2006, 12:37 PM	#6
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	a couple off the top of my head: - copyright law remains the same no matter what medium. despite what the splog software makers tell potential customers, putting a feed on a site without the explicit permission of the owner IS theft. - fair use is negated by monetization. - funny how people blow a gasket over guba round here but suck the cum stained sacks of those who make the splogware. - sploggers no better than spammers imho.

11-04-2006, 02:15 PM	#12
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	here is a better thread on the matter: http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737