Quote:
Originally Posted by will76
That's not correct. The majority of the stories on viral discussion right now are from rss feeds provided by sites like xbiz, ynot, klixxx, etc. I don't think they would provide an rss feed of their news stories and then get mad that we actually used the rss feeds they provided. We don't alter the feed and we link back to them for the rest of the story. Your comments of "copy write" and "lawsuit" do not apply here.
I honestly had no idea that posting a news story here and then linking to a page on my site where you could RANK the story or Leave a COMMENT, and click the link to read the rest of it would be such a big deal. The additional link for you to click takes all but about 5 seconds for you to click. I am sorry this inconvenience upset the people in this thread so much. I would have thought people would either read it or not if they didnt want to make the extra click. Pretty simple, but i guess not. I do find it ironic that people complaining about wasting 5 seconds of their life to make an extra click will spend a couple minutes to make a post about the 5 seconds they lost.
Blogs work this way, people who link to sites like digg.com are no different then what we are doing here. We are also spending our time to post about this stuff, is it really asking so much for you to make an extra click? Perhaps on my site you might find other news articles you are interested in where as if I sent you straight to the article you would bypass my site. Or I could just not post at all and you likely would have missed this article.
I know I can't make everyone happy but in the future we will not post articles here. We will start discussions about a particular topic and link to my site if you want to read an article about that particular discussion. This way you don't have to go read the article you can just post about the discussion started here. There would be no duplicate words for you to read and no one making crazy alligations of copywrite issues either.
Viraldiscussion.com is a new site that isn't even launched yet, we still have multiple parts of the site to complete. We were just testing the water some trying to get some feedback, work out the bugs, etc.. I guess we got some feedback.  If you guys want to flame anyone flame me, I own the site and asked Tampa to make some posts here. PeterK works for me as well. Please don't flame anyone else as they have nothing to do with the site other than to be gracious enough to put a banner in the sig that goes to ReferralMatrix.com, a top sponsor here. When ViralDiscussion is completed I will advertise it on GFY as well. |
Didn't really consider what I was offering flaming, Will. I considered it discussion - and inserting my 2 cents.
If it's an RSS feed from the publisher, then of course it's legit. I didn't realize that's what going on... of course, I didn't bother to take a whole lot of time on it - in the middle of the work day and all... so maybe that was my mistake - but I'm sure you understand.
I just figured someone was copy/pasting news stories they cherry-picked, truncating them, and then inserting a "for full story" link back to the original source... and that, if profited off of, could very well be the same "gray" copyright area that the article in this thread's first post is talking about.
Maybe it was the subject that got everyone riled up... you gotta admit that reprinting and linking a news story that involved discussion about a company reprinting and linking news stories with accusations of bad business and copyright infringement attached to it is kinda classic...
...but I was just hearing copy that... paste this... not "this is a legit RSS feed with explicit permission to reprint from every original publisher."
If that's the case, more power to ya.
