Quote:
Originally Posted by StuartD
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.
|
This is a waste of debate because posting someone's content without credit is low-class and just plain shitty, so why worry about the law.
Just operate like you've got some class and you'll never violate a copyright.
The reality is that copyright laws really only affects people who have no fucking class and woud like to take the credit of the hard work of other people. Is it going to kill anyone to post a link back to the source?
Hell no, so why even try to get around it.
If people give credit and post "proportionally" noone is going to object.
By proportionally I mean, save the "meat" of the content for the surfer to visit the source. Show them a clip, not the entire movie...dont' reveal the "spoiler/cliff hanger"...act like it's your shit that someone else is reusing and you will naturally do what's right.