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.

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..

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..

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

Exactly.

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

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 :thumbsup :thumbsup

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

rss is stupid

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. :thumbsup

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

Says who?

Because he agrees with you?

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.

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by baddog (Post 11244802) 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