legal question about rss syndication
 

Using Chio's software I've published rss feeds from various sources. I have not altered them in any way (words, links, or otherwise) and have given the appropriate link back to the source.

I now have a blog owner threatening legal action against me as well as posting my name and address on his blog. Honestly, I could give two fucks, but I'm curious about how the law views this situation.

unless he has given you permission, you are not allowed to post content from his feed on your site/blog.

You might be right - which is why I ask - but I have trouble believing all rss2blog and rssblogger users ask permission from every single source. I assumed that since the feeds are freely available, it was perfectly legal to syndicate them. It would be a different matter entirely if I copy and pasted content. Offering syndication, to me at least, implies consent that your content be syndicated.

They don't, they steal it like you do and get just as many threats.

No, it's a different matter when you make a profit from their work. Can I go post your entire websites word for word??? Even the people that will let you publish them freely will not let you make money doing so.

It seems to me that if you publish an RSS feed, without requiring an agreement or authentication of some sort, anyone can use it however they see fit.

If he's concerened about "improper use", however he defines it, he should have a registration form with a mandatory agreement in place - at least to give him some power should he try to sue.

I just don't understand people that put up RSS feeds then get pissed when people use them! That's the entire point.

All we ask is that people leave the backlinks intact. You want to relink keywords? Fine!

That's just the point, I don't consider it theft or else I wouldn't do it. If I wanted to steal I could do it quite effectively, but I chose not to. If this truly is theft then, of course, I'll apologise and stop it but I'm still unconvinced.

They don't ask permission.

They offer an rss feed so people can read their posts (or a summary of their post) in an aggregator (on their desktop for example),... They don't offer feeds so you can steal their content and repost/republish it.

Yep. You see, this is the way I see it too. If you offer syndication of your rss, then you are implying that you consent to it being used. Of course, you can say "Well, I left my house door open, so am I consenting to theft of my property," but this does not logically apply to blogging. Rss is am element of blogs that defines them.

normal use: reading an rss feed in your rss aggregator/reader.
stealing: using other people's content (either taken directly from their site or from their feeds) and publishing it on your site(s).

No one is syndicating their entire web site, word for word.

If they are, then, yeah - you can use it.

It all boils down to whether the site doing the syndication has an AUP or TOS along with it.

From Wikipedia:

A web feed is a document (often XML-based) which contains content items, often summaries of stories or weblog posts with web links to longer versions. Weblogs and news websites are common sources for web feeds, but feeds are also used to deliver structured information ranging from weather data to "top ten" lists of hit tunes. The two main web feed formats are RSS (which is older and far more widely used) and Atom (a newer format that has just completed the IETF standardization process.)

The terms "publishing a feed" and syndication are used to describe making available a feed for an information source, such as a blog. Like syndicated print newspaper features or broadcast programs, web feed contents may be shared and republished by other web sites. (For that reason, one popular definition of RSS is Really Simple Syndication.)

No. If a blogger adds an rss feed to his blog, he does that to give people xs to his posts... so they can READ them. He doesn't do that so people can steal them.

There are some people who have specifically given you a license to use their content via use of a Creative Commons license.

Since this site owner didn't spell out how her/his content could be used (I assume), then he doesn't want you to use his feed for republication. You could argue "fair use" but if you are taking his feed and adding nothing to the conversation, I'd think you would lose.

Why don't you just remove his content? If he gets wise he is going to put up a license which forbids this type of re-use. It is similar to free weekly newspapers in the United States. You could take all of the newspapers out of the rack if you wanted, but many of them grant you a license to take one and you would have to subscribe to take more; this is posted on a sticker on many newsracks.

How about this. Go repost CNN articles word for word on your website. I'll turn you in and when they tell you to take it down you can let it sit to see just how serious they are. It's theft, just because it's there does not give you the right to publish it as you see fit. You can use parts under fair use as with anything but to publish the feed is stealing. Even the bigger blogs that will allow you to post their full stuff as in their terms will not let you do it if you have ads on the page. Keep poking the angry bloggers and eventually you will find one that will sue and you can see just how expensive it is to lose a copyright suit. :2 cents:

You use the word steal, but it isn't theft. Also, you say that when a blogger offers an rss feed, he means he only wants people to use it in their readers. This isn't true. To get backlinks professional bloggers - myself included - actually want people to syndicate their posts. If a blog doesn't want their feed syndicated, surely the only reasonable way to state this is in their TOS because, as mentioned, the "ability" to syndicate implies logical consent.

http://www.cnn.com/services/rss/#terms

CNN has a Terms of Use requirement that specifically states you can not use it for profit, and that they require a license for republishing use.

So, with that in place, I would never use their content except for their intended uses.

My entire point is that the original publisher needs to have a TOS or AUP in place - otherwise it's fair game.

It's common sense anyway! If you provide a feed, and have restrictions on use, why would you NOT let people know what those restrictions are?

Sorry but you are wrong. Adult bloggers might want it but mainstream ones do not. If you go syndicate 100 blogs and tell them 99 will bitch. Chio even said to ask permission of the ones you are going to syndicate when he was selling it heavy. How about this, call a lawyer and let him tell you if it's legal just because it's there.

Dude you are making the argument you WANT to hear. Unfortunately that isn't the law. Lucky for you most bloggers are broke and won't actually get you in court but you better believe they can if they want to. They would win.

chadglni, I'm not saying I know you're wrong - I don't that's why I created this thread - but my personal view is different. For my own edification, could you post a link to legal facts to back up your argument. I have none to back up mine and I would - of course - be interested to know if you are right. My instinct and knowledge tell me you are wrong, but I would like to know for certain.

If you publish something on your website, you are giving people xs to it. They can read it in their browser. That's all they are allowed to do: read it. They don't have the right to copy something from your site and republish it (even if you don't mention this on your site). same thing applies to feeds. They can read it, but they can't republish it (unless you state otherwise).

Here are some links of ongoing discussion. Until a court decision specifically deals with this point of law, there will be a gray area.

How does copyright law work with RSS feeds?
Blog Content Aggregation, RSS Feeds and Copyright Law
RSS and Copyright, circa 2006

The argument that Kristian made is discussed in some of the articles, that tacit consent is given when a feed is made available. Id also think that the owner of the content has revoked any license granted by asking for you not to aggregate his content.

Also, IANAL (but may sit for the Bar someday).

Are you using both rss feeds and your own original content? i'm curious how the engines are treating the site if it only contains duplicate content from other sides.

This is where my view differs and I disagree with your analogy. If I own a website, which I do (thousands), it does not mean I allow it's content to be reproduced just because it is accessible with a browser. However, if I own a blog - which has a syndicated feed enabled, allowing sites and feed readers to syndicate - then I feel it would be necessary for me to stipulate an aversion to syndication in my TOS because having rss implies consent to its full use. As far as I can tell the jury is still out and no precendent has yet been set. I am here, not to be rude and argue, but to openly ask to be proven wrong so I don't step into trouble.

I value your opinion, just prove me wrong with facts.

That's what I tought too. I don't think you can get in any kind of trouble, only internet flamming :upsidedow

A combination. I run a number of blogs, have done for years, but bought a multisite license to try out Chio's baby. It got me to page 1 on each of my primary keywords within a month - within a week with an ass-related blog.

I think this issue of syndication and ownership is going to be HUGE in the next year.

Ultimately, its about permission. Judging by his actions, the feed/content/copyright owner doesn't want his feed published on your blog. Pull it.

There are FAIR USE exemptions to copyright law but you have to be very specific and actually put in more labor than just pulling feeds and publishing them verbatim. If you need CUSTOMIZED HELP to make you COMPLY with Fair Use exemptions, contact me for details.

You have said absolutely nothing concrete in those two paragraphs, other than a solicitation of business.

The folks who tell you this is wrong, and you are stealing, are not fully considering this issue of implied (or perhaps explicit) consent. Unfortunately, there are as yet no court opinions that have considered the issue either. We simply don't know what the courts will say about this issue, yet.

Personally, I think the consent argument is very powerful. To me, publishing an RSS feed and then screaming when somebody syndicates it is like publishing a web page and then screaming when somebody links to it. The very act of publishing something on the web is an explicit invitation to link, and thus complaining about unwanted links is pure foolishness. Similarly, I believe complaining about unwanted syndication is an admission that you don't understand what RSS is for.

I pulled one feed on a site because the owner was complaining. What was funny though is he gave me a nice write up on his pr5 blog which helped my domain out.

I still have 8 other licenses for chio's software and not sure what to do with them.