Does RSS Imply Permission To Reuse Content?
 

I didn't write this, but thought it was worth presenting to the GFY world.


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.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737 :winkwink:

Let's see who gets more views/replies :)

and I wonder how 2257 comes into effect?

Are you kidding? I'd lose that battle to the klik revenue vermin. :disgust

a couple off the top of my head:

- copyright law remains the same no matter what medium. despite what the splog software makers tell potential customers, putting a feed on a site without the explicit permission of the owner IS theft.

- fair use is negated by monetization.

- funny how people blow a gasket over guba round here but suck the cum stained sacks of those who make the splogware.

- sploggers no better than spammers imho.

:2 cents: :2 cents:

Just wondering if you have any idea of what RSS is for. If it was meant to get explicit permission, why would they offer it at all?

That was a joke, right?

most people offer it to use in readers like bloglines or whatever - not to be scraped and monetized -

obviously someone is trying to rationalize a new shitwork of splogs coming to clog google and make it even less relevant than it is now.

Sounds like some blogs took your SERP.

It's a great question. Let's hope most people can navigate the issue outside of a court room.

here is a better thread on the matter:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?t=673737

The other short answer is it's going to be a bitch for the person unlucky enough to become the "test case" for this.

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.

On the contrary, that is the standard disclaimer on most mainstream news feeds which are gobbled up by 99% of lazy adsense sploggers without any complaints

Pretty much! LOL