RSS = Real Simple Stealing?? When is and isn't legal? - GoFuckYourself.com

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 10:11 AM

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.

SmokeyTheBear · 11-04-2006, 10:29 AM

if you publish an rss feed arent you basically granting that permission ? otherwise what would be the purpose of habing the rss.

agreed it is a tricky area. when you get a newspaper regardless of if its free or you ay for it , it certainly doesnt grant you the right to reprint it , and certainly not to re-word it.. but then again publishing the newspaper also doesnt imply that right whereas rss kind of does..

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SmokeyTheBear

publishing the newspaper also doesnt imply that right whereas rss kind of does..

Yes, I agree... but... that's just because it's what we've become accustomed to thinking.
Who is it that decided that publishing an rss feed implies any kind of permissions on the content within?

SmokeyTheBear · 11-04-2006, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by StuartD

Yes, I agree... but... that's just because it's what we've become accustomed to thinking.
Who is it that decided that publishing an rss feed implies any kind of permissions on the content within?

i see your point but newspapers aren't published for the sole purpose of reproduction wheras rss is made for the sole purpose of reproducing.. i'm thinking that if you simply added terms to the rss it would cover you the same way..

pornpf69 · 11-04-2006, 10:48 AM

interesting discussion...

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pornpf69

interesting discussion...

Apparently not... over 40 views and only a few replies.

Anyway, it does beg the question... if Playboy had an rss feed to showcase their content, does that give you the right to use that content indefinitely on your website or just for the lifetime of it's feed syndication... what are the limitations? Could you promote some other program with that feed on the same page?

squishypimp · 11-04-2006, 11:28 AM

they say immidation is the highest form of flattery.

Dirty F · 11-04-2006, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by squishypimp

they say immidation is the highest form of flattery.

Please can you just post smileys or something. Fucking idiot. Stop pretending you are involved in the discussion.

Brujah · 11-04-2006, 12:28 PM

If you offer RSS feeds, don't you WANT it to be syndicated then? You control what portion of your content is allowed to be syndicated. You don't have to offer RSS at all. It's meant to be syndicated.

When is it considered stealing?

Agent 488 · 11-04-2006, 12:43 PM

i offer my feeds for people to read in bloglines or whatever, not for people to scrape and plaster with splogwords.

interesting how people around here can only conceptualize uses of rss in the contex of splogs. funny that.

i find weak the splog rationalizations funny too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brujah

If you offer RSS feeds, don't you WANT it to be syndicated then? You control what portion of your content is allowed to be syndicated. You don't have to offer RSS at all. It's meant to be syndicated.

When is it considered stealing?

Nathan · 11-04-2006, 01:08 PM

The problem with RSS is that when it was invented it was for just that, syndication, to allow a site to for example list headlines from a news paper.

Thats the IDEA of RSS. The problem started when blogs came around and people wanted everyone to read their views, so RSS got more and more content added to it.

Next step in the evolution was when all those RSS readers came along. People started using them to read RSS feeds from a bunch of different sites at the same time. Again, RSS feeds were supposed to hold SUMMARIES only, not FULL data.

Because of the whole RSS craze people started to push whole articles in RSS and now we have this simple problem. If RSS would have stayed the way it should have, then all you would be stealing would be an introduction to the article, people would still have to go to the site itself to actually READ it.

Splum · 11-04-2006, 01:15 PM

It is illegal to use RSS feeds on any commercial site without express permission granted.

DjSap · 11-04-2006, 01:16 PM

rss isn't bad as long as it is done with consent when it is used for commercial purposes. The big problem is aggregators that rewrite the content and change the affiliate id's.

fusionx · 11-04-2006, 01:16 PM

Any publisher that cares either way should have a Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy for their RSS feeds published on the site. Some do, some don't.

Some TOS allow non-commercial use for unlimited reproduction with certain terms in place, like leaving the permalinks intact. Some allow it for personal use in readers only.

If there is no TOS/AUP, it could be reasonably assumed that it's OK to use it however you see fit.

StuartD · 11-04-2006, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

The problem with RSS is that when it was invented it was for just that, syndication, to allow a site to for example list headlines from a news paper.

Thats the IDEA of RSS. The problem started when blogs came around and people wanted everyone to read their views, so RSS got more and more content added to it.

Next step in the evolution was when all those RSS readers came along. People started using them to read RSS feeds from a bunch of different sites at the same time. Again, RSS feeds were supposed to hold SUMMARIES only, not FULL data.

Because of the whole RSS craze people started to push whole articles in RSS and now we have this simple problem. If RSS would have stayed the way it should have, then all you would be stealing would be an introduction to the article, people would still have to go to the site itself to actually READ it.

Exactly... now, with the right tools or plugins to wordpress, you can have your own full blown news site, porn site... or what ever you want... just by plugging in the right RSS feed.

And the user will never have any need nor desire to go to the originating site.

jayeff · 11-04-2006, 01:27 PM

Really Simple Syndication. It isn't an assumption by webmasters that feeds are there to be displayed on other sites: the delivery medium announces it!

If I write and publish an article on a blog, that article is my intellectual property and certain copyright protections are given me, even if I do not display a copyright notice. However, if I make that whole article available via an RSS feed - particularly since I can choose to make only an excerpt available - and do nothing else, I believe that a court would throw out any copyright case that I might subsequently try to bring against someone.

However, there is nothing to prevent me attaching specific conditions to the use of my feed and providing I display those conditions, then I believe it should be possible to establish legal protection for them, in much the same way that there are various "open-source" licenses which limit what may be done with the code. design or whatever to which they apply.

$5 submissions · 11-04-2006, 01:31 PM

One thing is clear --- RSS definitely took scraping to another level.

HOWEVER, there's an alternative... RSS + EDITORIAL DAILY BATCH OUTSOURCING + some simple scripts = TONS of fresh traffic, NO copyright issues, and TONS of Readable and "real" pages

Posts with custom pics? No problem
Diversified sources? No problem
One way links? No problem
Done at really cheap rates? No problem
Checked against Google duplicate database? No problem

Brujah · 11-04-2006, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

i offer my feeds for people to read in bloglines or whatever, not for people to scrape and plaster with splogwords.

interesting how people around here can only conceptualize uses of rss in the contex of splogs. funny that.

i find weak the splog rationalizations funny too.

Don't you get traffic back, if someone syndicates your feeds?

Splum · 11-04-2006, 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fusionx

If there is no TOS/AUP, it could be reasonably assumed that it's OK to use it however you see fit.

That is not true it is still copyrighted information that you are copying without express permission. Copyright extends to ANY information published electronically anywhere with or without a TOS/AUP, it is ILLEGAL TO USE ANY RSS FEED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION TO DO SO.

Splum · 11-04-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jayeff

If I write and publish an article on a blog, that article is my intellectual property and certain copyright protections are given me, even if I do not display a copyright notice. However, if I make that whole article available via an RSS feed - particularly since I can choose to make only an excerpt available - and do nothing else, I believe that a court would throw out any copyright case that I might subsequently try to bring against someone.

RSS is the same thing as HTML, coyrights extend to ALL INFORMATION published electronically or otherwise. It is ILLEGAL to use RSS for commercial purposes unless permission is specifically granted.

Agent 488 · 11-04-2006, 01:52 PM

seems like splum is one of the few around here to have a clue about the matter.

$5 submissions · 11-04-2006, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

That is not true it is still copyrighted information that you are copying without express permission. Copyright extends to ANY information published electronically anywhere with or without a TOS/AUP, it is ILLEGAL TO USE ANY RSS FEED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION TO DO SO.

Exactly.

Splum · 11-04-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

seems like splum is one of the few around here to have a clue about the matter.

Ive consulted my lawyer about this before when I was thinking of getting into the splog game. Stuck to original blogs since then.

$5 submissions · 11-04-2006, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

Ive consulted my lawyer about this before when I was thinking of getting into the splog game. Stuck to original blogs since then.

Right on, man! If you do ADSENSE-driven blogs, hit me up. I might have a VERY VERY CHEAP option for you for original content. 1/2 a cent per word or cheaper. All original. All derivative rights secured.

Another option, using RSS legally through outsourced labor and scripts to create original materials (as provided for in the "safe harbor" exceptions to US Copyright laws). We provide this, too

Brujah · 11-04-2006, 02:25 PM

I'm not convinced yet.

"In my mind, there's no question that a blogger grants an implied license to the content in an RSS feed. However, because it's implied, I'm just not sure of the license terms. So, in theory, it could be an implied license to permit aggregators to do whatever they want."

http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives...ntent_ag_1.htm

His biography indicates he has at least some clue about what he's saying.
http://www.ericgoldman.org/biography.html

mikeyddddd · 11-04-2006, 02:54 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.

ucv.karl · 11-04-2006, 03:26 PM

We put the affiliate code in the rss feed. So any affliate can suscribe to the rss with their affiliate code ('coupon').

Like this:

http://blog.upperclassvideo.com/?fee...?coupon=123450

So the affiliate can take the content and update their blog, or augment the post with their own person touches. Also, any traffic they send to the blog works the same way.

http://blog.upperclassvideo.com/?coupon=123450

We see the blog as another traffic source for affiliates to use and rss as just a fancy (and well formated) potd/motd.

Chio · 11-04-2006, 04:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

i offer my feeds for people to read in bloglines or whatever, not for people to scrape and plaster with splogwords.

interesting how people around here can only conceptualize uses of rss in the contex of splogs. funny that.

i find weak the splog rationalizations funny too.

Google themselves use rss to build their google news site. None of the content on their news site is owned by google yet no one complains. You know why? Traffic. Syndication provides a wider audience to your content at no cost.

Many people I syndicate using AutoBlogger Pro have thanked me for the boost in traffic. You can look at alexa rankings and visually see an increase in their traffic shortly after I start syndicating their feeds.

People that don't want to be syndicated don't have to be.

interracialtoons · 11-04-2006, 07:47 PM

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.

interracialtoons · 11-04-2006, 07:54 PM

PS: Search engine will always be protected because their main purpose is to send you to "The Source".

Google and Yahoo video is bluring the line but as you have heard they are having to remove protected material because of this bluring.

fris · 11-04-2006, 07:58 PM

rss is stupid

11-04-2006, 08:15 PM

RSS is, in my opinion, only useful to a certain extent.

It allows syndication of multiple feeds in one centralized place (a news aggregator), it allows your content to be syndicated and displayed in trusted sites (as headlines) and, sadly, it's used to feed your original content to sploggers.

I've always found summarized content feeds to work the best. People who aggregate your feed will click through if they see something they like, trusted networks can still use your headlines and splogs will stay away from you because they want to avoid chopped off content.

As for the copyright issue, I agree with Splum.

Mr. Marks · 11-05-2006, 01:22 AM

Fuck hijacking RSS feeds. What the fuck is it about "for NON-COMMERCIAL USE" do clowns not understand???????

baddog · 11-05-2006, 01:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

That is not true it is still copyrighted information that you are copying without express permission. Copyright extends to ANY information published electronically anywhere with or without a TOS/AUP, it is ILLEGAL TO USE ANY RSS FEED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION TO DO SO.

Says who?

baddog · 11-05-2006, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by budsbabes

seems like splum is one of the few around here to have a clue about the matter.

Because he agrees with you?

baddog · 11-05-2006, 01:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chio

People that don't want to be syndicated don't have to be.

That is pretty much what I tell the people that write to me demanding I shut someone's server down because they used an RSS feed.

baddog · 11-05-2006, 01:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Equinox

I've always found summarized content feeds to work the best.

It is the only way to fly as an RSS feed suplier.

2HousePlague · 11-05-2006, 01:55 AM

The presence of Terms of Use is a good indicator that at least some syndication is allowed -- http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/#terms

2hp

baddog · 11-05-2006, 02:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

The presence of Terms of Use is a good indicator that at least some syndication is allowed -- http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/#terms

2hp

With lots of restrictions.

If someone came to me and said, "Look, I have these terms on my website." I would definitely talk to my customer and recommend they rethink the use of that guy's RSS feeds.

2HousePlague · 11-05-2006, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

With lots of restrictions.

If someone came to me and said, "Look, I have these terms on my website." I would definitely talk to my customer and recommend they rethink the use of that guy's RSS feeds.

You asked about legality not practicality.

2hp

darksoul · 11-05-2006, 02:13 AM

The implied consent is bullshit used by sploggers to sleep well at night. If they even need that.
Everything that you create gets some copyright protection and can't be taken
away unless you specifically say so.

baddog · 11-05-2006, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

You asked about legality not practicality.

2hp

hmmm, I don't recall that. But okay.

2HousePlague · 11-05-2006, 02:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

hmmm, I don't recall that. But okay.

The title of your thread " RSS = Real Simple Stealing?? When is and isn't legal?"

2hp

Nathan · 11-05-2006, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Splum

That is not true it is still copyrighted information that you are copying without express permission. Copyright extends to ANY information published electronically anywhere with or without a TOS/AUP, it is ILLEGAL TO USE ANY RSS FEED FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES UNLESS YOU HAVE SPECIFIC PERMISSION TO DO SO.

But thats the thing that makes no sense. The whole PURPOSE of RSS is to SHARE. So why would anyone need PERMISSION to use an RSS Feed?! It is made to SHARE CONTENT, thats the whole MEANING of syndication!

Babaganoosh · 11-05-2006, 02:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

But thats the thing that makes no sense. The whole PURPOSE of RSS is to SHARE. So why would anyone need PERMISSION to use an RSS Feed?! It is made to SHARE CONTENT, thats the whole MEANING of syndication!

To share with readers, NOT with people wanting to post the content on their sites and profit from someone else's work.

Babaganoosh · 11-05-2006, 02:29 AM

Isn't there a wordpress plugin somewhere that will allow you to have bother summary and full feeds but insert ads into the full feeds? That would be an ideal solution to the problem.

baddog · 11-05-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2HousePlague

The title of your thread " RSS = Real Simple Stealing?? When is and isn't legal?"

2hp

Sorry, this wasn't my thread.

darksoul · 11-05-2006, 02:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nathan

But thats the thing that makes no sense. The whole PURPOSE of RSS is to SHARE. So why would anyone need PERMISSION to use an RSS Feed?! It is made to SHARE CONTENT, thats the whole MEANING of syndication!

Says who ?
Just because thats what is used for doesn't make it a law.
Most of the users that do this do it because they're not aware (wordpress comes with it enabled by default) or because they want better SE results.

An open door is not an invitation to get in.

2HousePlague · 11-05-2006, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog

Sorry, this wasn't my thread.

That is my bad.

2hp

Manowar · 11-05-2006, 03:16 AM

loving that pokemon sig

11-04-2006, 10:11 AM	#1
StuartD Sofa King Band Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Outside the box Posts: 29,903	RSS = Real Simple Stealing?? When is and isn't legal? 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 me on facebook This is me on twitter

11-04-2006, 10:29 AM	#2
SmokeyTheBear ►SouthOfHeaven Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: PlanetEarth MyBoardRank: GerbilMaster My-Penis-Size: extralarge MyWeapon: Computer Posts: 28,609	if you publish an rss feed arent you basically granting that permission ? otherwise what would be the purpose of habing the rss. agreed it is a tricky area. when you get a newspaper regardless of if its free or you ay for it , it certainly doesnt grant you the right to reprint it , and certainly not to re-word it.. but then again publishing the newspaper also doesnt imply that right whereas rss kind of does.. __________________ hatisblack at yahoo.com

11-04-2006, 10:48 AM	#5
pornpf69 Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Brasil Posts: 15,778	interesting discussion... __________________ Do you need cheap, fast and reliable porn website hosting? Host Head is the way to go!! Asian Gay Special \| Live on MSN - Live Webcam Chat \| Live Adult Webcam Performances \| MY SWEET BLACKS LIVE ON CAM Cash X \| OK Pay \| Pukka Ropes \| Pukka Fetish \| STRAPED BLOG \| Male Bound and Fucked Pukka Tranny \| Tattooed Shemales \| She's A He \| Menu Porno \| Porn Performances \| All Chubby MY ICQ# 169833797

11-04-2006, 11:28 AM	#7
squishypimp PostMaster General Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 10,781	they say immidation is the highest form of flattery. __________________ Signature For Sale

11-04-2006, 12:28 PM	#9
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	If you offer RSS feeds, don't you WANT it to be syndicated then? You control what portion of your content is allowed to be syndicated. You don't have to offer RSS at all. It's meant to be syndicated. When is it considered stealing? __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

11-04-2006, 01:08 PM	#11
Nathan Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2003 Posts: 3,108	The problem with RSS is that when it was invented it was for just that, syndication, to allow a site to for example list headlines from a news paper. Thats the IDEA of RSS. The problem started when blogs came around and people wanted everyone to read their views, so RSS got more and more content added to it. Next step in the evolution was when all those RSS readers came along. People started using them to read RSS feeds from a bunch of different sites at the same time. Again, RSS feeds were supposed to hold SUMMARIES only, not FULL data. Because of the whole RSS craze people started to push whole articles in RSS and now we have this simple problem. If RSS would have stayed the way it should have, then all you would be stealing would be an introduction to the article, people would still have to go to the site itself to actually READ it.

11-04-2006, 01:15 PM	#12
Splum Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: USA Posts: 6,195	It is illegal to use RSS feeds on any commercial site without express permission granted.

11-04-2006, 01:16 PM	#13
DjSap Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2002 Posts: 3,869	rss isn't bad as long as it is done with consent when it is used for commercial purposes. The big problem is aggregators that rewrite the content and change the affiliate id's. __________________ Blog Themes, TGP Design, Writing Services, Grunt Work ICQ: 66871495

11-04-2006, 01:16 PM	#14
fusionx Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Olongapo City, Philippines Posts: 4,618	Any publisher that cares either way should have a Terms of Service or Acceptable Use Policy for their RSS feeds published on the site. Some do, some don't. Some TOS allow non-commercial use for unlimited reproduction with certain terms in place, like leaving the permalinks intact. Some allow it for personal use in readers only. If there is no TOS/AUP, it could be reasonably assumed that it's OK to use it however you see fit.

11-04-2006, 01:27 PM	#16
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Really Simple Syndication. It isn't an assumption by webmasters that feeds are there to be displayed on other sites: the delivery medium announces it! If I write and publish an article on a blog, that article is my intellectual property and certain copyright protections are given me, even if I do not display a copyright notice. However, if I make that whole article available via an RSS feed - particularly since I can choose to make only an excerpt available - and do nothing else, I believe that a court would throw out any copyright case that I might subsequently try to bring against someone. However, there is nothing to prevent me attaching specific conditions to the use of my feed and providing I display those conditions, then I believe it should be possible to establish legal protection for them, in much the same way that there are various "open-source" licenses which limit what may be done with the code. design or whatever to which they apply.

11-04-2006, 01:31 PM	#17
$5 submissions I help you SUCCEED Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: The Pearl of the Orient Seas Posts: 32,195	One thing is clear --- RSS definitely took scraping to another level. HOWEVER, there's an alternative... RSS + EDITORIAL DAILY BATCH OUTSOURCING + some simple scripts = TONS of fresh traffic, NO copyright issues, and TONS of Readable and "real" pages Posts with custom pics? No problem Diversified sources? No problem One way links? No problem Done at really cheap rates? No problem Checked against Google duplicate database? No problem __________________ Need a NON-ADULT income stream? We build your YOUTUBE CHANNEL for only $20 per video! For Hire: $3/hour or $400 per month Marketing Specialist Virtual Assistants

11-04-2006, 01:52 PM	#21
Agent 488 Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 22,511	seems like splum is one of the few around here to have a clue about the matter.

11-04-2006, 02:25 PM	#25
Brujah Beer Money Baron Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: brujah / gmail Posts: 22,157	I'm not convinced yet. "In my mind, there's no question that a blogger grants an implied license to the content in an RSS feed. However, because it's implied, I'm just not sure of the license terms. So, in theory, it could be an implied license to permit aggregators to do whatever they want." http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives...ntent_ag_1.htm His biography indicates he has at least some clue about what he's saying. http://www.ericgoldman.org/biography.html __________________ Free Premium Domain Lists and Tools at Clickmojo.com For Sale: Obscenity.com

11-04-2006, 02:54 PM	#26
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, 03:26 PM	#27
ucv.karl Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Phx,Az Posts: 498	We put the affiliate code in the rss feed. So any affliate can suscribe to the rss with their affiliate code ('coupon'). Like this: http://blog.upperclassvideo.com/?fee...?coupon=123450 So the affiliate can take the content and update their blog, or augment the post with their own person touches. Also, any traffic they send to the blog works the same way. http://blog.upperclassvideo.com/?coupon=123450 We see the blog as another traffic source for affiliates to use and rss as just a fancy (and well formated) potd/motd. __________________ It's better when you can Switch. ICQ: 263079754

11-04-2006, 07:54 PM	#30
interracialtoons Confirmed User Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 1,910	PS: Search engine will always be protected because their main purpose is to send you to "The Source". Google and Yahoo video is bluring the line but as you have heard they are having to remove protected material because of this bluring. __________________ Done.

11-04-2006, 07:58 PM	#31
fris Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 55,372	rss is stupid __________________ Since 1999: 69 Adult Industry awards for Best Hosting Company and professional excellence. WP Stuff

11-04-2006, 08:15 PM	#32
X37375787 Guest Posts: n/a	RSS is, in my opinion, only useful to a certain extent. It allows syndication of multiple feeds in one centralized place (a news aggregator), it allows your content to be syndicated and displayed in trusted sites (as headlines) and, sadly, it's used to feed your original content to sploggers. I've always found summarized content feeds to work the best. People who aggregate your feed will click through if they see something they like, trusted networks can still use your headlines and splogs will stay away from you because they want to avoid chopped off content. As for the copyright issue, I agree with Splum.

11-05-2006, 01:22 AM	#33
Mr. Marks Confirmed User Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Wherever I want Posts: 7,517	Fuck hijacking RSS feeds. What the fuck is it about "for NON-COMMERCIAL USE" do clowns not understand???????

11-05-2006, 01:55 AM	#38
2HousePlague CURATOR Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: the attic Posts: 14,572	The presence of Terms of Use is a good indicator that at least some syndication is allowed -- http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/#terms 2hp __________________ tada!

11-05-2006, 02:13 AM	#41
darksoul Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: /root/ Posts: 4,997	The implied consent is bullshit used by sploggers to sleep well at night. If they even need that. Everything that you create gets some copyright protection and can't be taken away unless you specifically say so. __________________ 1337 5y54\|)m1n: 157717888 BM-2cUBw4B2fgiYAfjkE7JvWaJMiUXD96n9tN Cambooth

11-05-2006, 02:29 AM	#46
Babaganoosh ♥♥♥ Likes Hugs ♥♥♥ Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: /home Posts: 15,841	Isn't there a wordpress plugin somewhere that will allow you to have bother summary and full feeds but insert ads into the full feeds? That would be an ideal solution to the problem. __________________ I like pie.

11-05-2006, 03:16 AM	#50
Manowar jellyfish Join Date: Dec 2003 Posts: 71,528	loving that pokemon sig