Forum Moderators: not2easy
This is so bizarre I cannot believe it.
The threats and harrassment have gotten bad so I've gone to the police.
Yup! I'm using rsstoblog.com software to do it. I picked RSS feeds from syndic8.com, then I checked the sites they were from to make sure they were not covered by creative common license or any restrictions of use. So I'm only using 10 feeds that are free for the public to use.
And these yahoos are irate I'm using RSS feeds not from their blogs but other people's blogs! It is absolutely unbelievable.
The local police have their emails and phone messages and are going to subpeona yahoo for more info to track one of them down. The other one we know and the police have already contacted her.
Crazy that they were mad I was "unethical" by using RSS feeds because it was "stealing content" which it's not. And they actually did commit crimes with their harrassment. Some people are nuts.
Reminds me of some recent yahoo that called me yelling one day because his information that he placed on my web site showed up WAY above his Google listings; "Why did you put that on Google? I never told you to put anything on Google, you take that right off.". He didn't understand the PR6 vs. PR3 view of the world but finally gave in when I explained people were most likely getting to his site via mine as at least I moved his information into the top 10 vs the top 40 above his competition. :)
I could give you 100 stories like this or worse but you get the idea.
Forest Gump's mama said it best:
"Stupid is as stupid does"
Reminds me of some recent yahoo that called me yelling one day because his information that he placed on my web site showed up WAY above his Google
Yeah, those are fun, aren't they.
We had a new manufacturer who got irate that a review on our site showed up above his site (which "finally" was listed), and that the review was costing him sales because it was "so negative". (The review in fact was mostly positive except for one point)
What he didn't understand was that the only reason his site got listed at all was because of the links from our site.
It was the only time we ever willingly pulled reviews, because we knew that it would sink him.
Anyway, those don't even compare to someone harassing kokopoko for using RSS feeds as they were intended.
I've started messing around with rss a little lately. I did notice some on the T&C's on these feeds state they are free for personal or non-commercial use only. One site was charging $2500 for a feed for a commercial site.
One site was charging $2500 for a feed for a commercial site.
how do they define a "commercial site"?
Some places get quite specific with their definitions. For example, I think a blog software maker (?) specifically said a site that was non-profit except for Google Adsense would fall under their non-commercial license category.
I'd recommend reading the fine print at each site providing your feeds, and if it isn't crystal-clear, contacting them for permission. Getting permission now could save a headache later.
These morons don't know their rights.
he's still sending me emails harrassing me with obscenities.
This isn't legal advice obviously, it's a scare tactic I use.
I reply to pesistent idiots like that with a CC: to my lawyer and tell them to cease and desist sending me content of this nature and I always make sure to put the "CC: lawyer name, Esq., Attorney at Law" at the bottom of the email.
I'm telling you, I don't get any repeat nonsense after that, so far :)
But if it is you have to have it somewhere on the blog front page! He does not have anything anywhere. So no it's not protected.
Oh, if it is copyrightable, it is certainly protected. If you remove the license granting you the right to use it, then it defaults back to copyright law. That means that you have no rights to use it and are infringing on his copyright.
Of course, depending which CCL he released it under, he may not be able to take it back. If it was CCL-NC, you are screwed.
If you did, this would go some way to explaining why the person contacting you is irate.
Nothing irritates webmasters more than having their text and link used without providing an active link back to their site.
He does not have anything anywhere. So no it's not protected.
These morons don't know their rights.
Original content is automatically protected. Placing legal copy with the content only modifies the absolute rights the creator/publisher already has to the content.
Call your lawyer before telling an original content creator that they don't have rights to their creations.
how do they define a "commercial site"?
However they want. When you make something original that is trademarked/copywritten you are the one who gets to decide how it is used.
But rss feeds are different. They syndicated the content themselves for the public to use.
But rss feeds are different. They syndicated the content themselves for the public to use.
That's not different whatsoever.
The creator of the content has full copyright and can pick and choose who can use it at his discretion.
The only thing they lack from possibly not filing of an actual copyright is the ability to collect statutory damages, but they have the right to tell you to stop using it regardless as it doesn't belong to you, it belongs to them.
But rss feeds are different
RSS feeds are the exact same as a web page as far as intellectual property is concerned. Don't confuse convenience for the user to mean less protection for the owner.
