Forum Moderators: not2easy
When I contacted them the guy told me that bloggers are fools because they do not switch off the ATOM feed (or RSS feed) and thus allowing aggregators to pick such content up. I told him it was okay for a user to use a news aggregator software to read feeds from blogs and other places, but using an aggregator to feed his own site on the content of others is something else. I questioned his practice as being white hat or not, but he simply told me that sure it is totally legitemate as long as those "foolish" bloggers keep their RSS/ATOM options on and do not turn them off.
I could not thing of a better place to ask this question then here. Is it true that as long as you do not switch off your ATOM feed in your blog then any site can just grab the full content of your site (without asking your permission or even notifying you about it) and feed his site on your content?
Essentially, this guy is trying to tell you that you’ve made it easy for him to steal your work and it is therefore acceptable.
If I were you, I would send him another email letting him know that he has a day or two to remove your content from his site before you contact his host and request he be shut down for plagiarism.
Take a few screen shots of his site before contacting his host, and gather any other supporting evidence that may be helpful.
MG
You weren't doing any such thing. No, what he's doing is, IMHO, copyright infringement.
Gather your documentation and contact the host.
Maybe his site going down will serve as an eye opener to him.
Sometimes I wonder why I bother to post in this forum.
Because you have something useful and to the point to say? The fact that others, including me, then commented further doesn't invalidate your response, which was a good one.
That guy is not the kind of guy who want's to do somethign wrong and get away with it. I think he would like to play by the rules. He is very technically savvy, but perhaps not as competent with regards to knowing what is 'legal' and what is not. I believe he is well intentioned, and the only reason he is doing so is that he believes it is lawful. What I really need here is just one piece of solid proof that it is considered unlawful to aggregate ATOM feeds from other sites into ones own site without permission. A single link to an authority place on the net explicitly mentiong that this is unlawful would be enough to convince him (and make me as well absolutely confident) that such practice is unlawful. I belive that once he sees this and thus is convinced he will instantly remove any aggregation in his site from all the blogs he is now taking content from.
The guy is a good person, but it just seems he is not aware that this is an unlawful practice and thinks that his point is right because he is "an active member in [such] online communities" as he says in his own words.
So, what is the single link to an authority site that explicitly says this practice is unlawful?
[linuxinsider.com...]
What this guy thinks is irrelevant. There are many people that commit crimes and never realize the wrongdoing they have caused - that doesn’t justify their original actions.
Understand this: YOUR site is the law in this case because you are the creator of the content being misused. If you want an authoritative answer about how your content can or cannot be use, post it on your site.
Put this at the bottom of your homepage in small font and tell your friend to go and read it. After that, let him know you will be pointing his host to the same notification.
“All content is copyright YOURSITE 2004. Content may not be redistributed in way, or through any means without express written consent from YOURSITE.”
Please take no offense to my next comment as I mean it in the most respectable, constructive way possible. I don’t know how long you’ve been in the online game, but if you want to make it I think you’re going to need to adjust your attitude a little bit. It’s nice to have compassion, but when your compassion becomes self-destructive by allowing people to take advantage of you - it’s time for a change.
Regardless of whether or not this is a nice guy - if left unchecked his actions will be detrimental to your personal success and must be stopped.
Understand this: YOUR site is the law in this case because you are the creator of the content being misused. If you want an authoritative answer about how your content can or cannot be use, post it on your site.
You cannot be more wrong. The law is the law, all you can do is license away some of the rights granted you by the law.
As the creator of a work, you have absolutley no right to set limits beyond what is granted you by law. You do not own the work, you only own the copyright to that work. That copyright grants you limited rights for a limited time. Never forget those limits.
If the law allows copying, you have no right to stop it.
all you can do is license away some of the rights granted you by the lawYes, but this is not the case here.
As the creator of a work, you have absolutely no right to set limits beyond what is granted you by lawI agree, but I prefer to be proactive and to use those laws for what they are intended - which is the protection and preservation of my livelihood.
If the law allows copying, you have no right to stop it.I suppose anything can be worded to hold a certain amount of truth. Last I checked copyright laws were meant to STOP copying?
I run a drupal site (although I don't do what he did).
I came into this thread thinking: "If you are broadcasting the information, how can you tell people not to listen to that station on their radio?"
But I was wrong. The interview is very clear: RSS/ATOM/XML are simply your content reformatted and legally it is still yours reguardless of how it is formatted and what people can do with that formatting.
I agree, but I prefer to be proactive and to use those laws for what they are intended - which is the protection and preservation of my livelihood.
No, the copyright laws, at least here in the United States, are not meant for the protetion of your livelihood. They are meant to encourage you to produce more works that will eventually go into the public domain and "promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts"
I suppose anything can be worded to hold a certain amount of truth. Last I checked copyright laws were meant to STOP copying?
Then you better check again. It gives you limited (though significant) control over the copying and distribution.
My point was that you were suggesting that what you say on your website is the law, and it is not. The public and its institutions retain a significant right to copy your works.
In the case that shafaki mentioned, it is certainly copyright infringement, but not because of any policy posted on a website, but because of 17 USC or whatever the appropriate law for that location.
There is also nothing wrong with taking the compassionate route first. As the rightsholder, it is his choice. I know some very successful people that choose to go that route.
The funny thing is that you are suggesting being harsh on someone that is mistaken about copyright law, when it is obvious that you yourself have some mistaken conceptions of copyright law.
It is clear that you are free to "listen to that radio station" when someone is making it available to you. You can even tape that broadcast for your own personal use, and you can even play it for your friends in a private setting. What you can't do is rebroadcast that program, in its entirety, on your own radio station without permission.
My point was that you were suggesting that what you say on your website is the lawNo, I am saying to you NEED to say something on your website. Given the current situation there weren’t any boundaries set as to what the creator of the content deemed acceptable or unacceptable use of the content.
There is also nothing wrong with taking the compassionate route first. As the rightsholder, it is his choice. I know some very successful people that choose to go that route.I think my first post on this topic was quite compassionate. Compassion only goes so far. Since this gentleman did not seem to get the point I personally feel the situation warrants harsher action.
-As soon as someone creates a work - writes an article, writes a song, composes a tune, or whatever - copyright is automatic. There's no need to register copyright; the creator owns the copyright whether or not it has been created.
-If you don't see a copyright notice attached, it doesn't mean the work's copyright isn't owned by someone. Current copyright law does not require such notices.
-If someone owns the copyright, that person has the right to say what can be done with copies. What this means is that you generally can't take an article you find in an newspaper, magazine, or Web site and use it without permission.
-You can't just take something and rewrite it. Derivative works are also protected. If the result is clearly derived from the original, you could be in trouble. (Bad for Articlebot?)
Other than that, it seems that the only way to use copyrighted material is if it is really old, the government created it or under fair use laws, which dictate that you can use small snippets of a work to explain something. In this case however, we are talking about the enrite piece, and unedited at that. Regardless of the RSS feed, the author has the right to request that it be taken off the web site.
As a side note, along with the fact that Mr. Kent did an excellent job explaining the copyright issue, the entire book itself is a valuable resource for SEO, for designers and marketers, beginner and otherwise. Very easy to read. He even props WebmasterWorld in its pages. If you get a chance, and you're not already a master at this, I would recommend you pick it up.
Register here [copyright.gov]
Anybody know what I'm talking about?
Come to think of it, its slightly nuts to not do so. -Larry
[copyscape.com...]
[edited by: rogerd at 1:57 pm (utc) on Aug. 25, 2005]
[edit reason] linked URL [/edit]
