I for one won’t mind people sharing my content with anyone else as long as they atleast mention that it came from one of my blogs or gives me an opportunity to contact them so they can remove it. What is wrong is someone sharing your content and then claiming it as their own.

So my opinion is this. It’s right to share someones content, as a way of adding to your user experience. It is however wrong if you use their content and claim it as your own to promote any entity, such as yourself or your blog, as the creator of such content.

And, speaking of responsibility, in your article you write: “Charles John­son, the creator of Feed­Word­Press is in con­stant and fre­quent vi­o­la­tion of copyright law be­cause the ap­par­ent ma­jority of his blog’s con­tent is stolen with­out the original au­thors’ per­mis­sion.”

You then link to Feminist Blogs — a topical aggregator that I’ve run since November 2004 — as “my blog” (it’s not; my blog is at radgeek.com).

This is a serious accusation. Do you have absolutely any evidence whatsoever that any of the feeds syndicated on Feminist Blogs are syndicated without the express permission of the author or authors? If so, what evidence do you have?

Are these others just content theives that don’t want their actions to be limited? I just don’t get their comments!

Anyway, much thanks from me I appreciate the info

When I find my content has been syndicated without following these requirements I contact the site owner and ask them to adhere to my rules for using my content. I give them a few weeks and resend my email a few times.

If no action is taken I then contact the web company who is hosting the splog site. True, not all hosts will be helpful, but I’ve had great success with this approach and recommend it.

In short, send the host a list of the articles and matching source URLs from your site and explain that the splogger is infringing on your copyright. In every case where I’ve taken this action, the hosting company investigates, verifies copyright infringement and shuts down their site until they either remove my content or use my content as laid out in my copyright and syndication page.

Hi. Where did you get this idea from?
Also, could you point me to any successful lawsuits that you have pursued? Thanks!

Ok, I’m being facetious here, but I feel wronged whenever someone grabs my content and sticks ads around it. good to know I can put a notice around it telling them that its not consumercial syndication.

“In fact, Charles Johnson, the creator of FeedWordPress is in constant and frequent violation of copyright law because the apparent majority of his blog’s content is stolen without the original authors’ permission.”

Absolutely incorrect. He can only be in violation if the author has denied him permission. In fact, the fact that he’s been republishing (not stealing) this information for so long without a problem ACTUALLY means that there is an implicit license to use them. You can’t steal something that is given away with permission, Pariah. The only person breaking laws here is YOU. What you are doing is called Libel and it is written defamation.

“RSS feeds are published for individual, private consumption”

The ignorance here is palpable. RSS feeds are published for whatever reason the copyright owner wants to publish them for. If its individual, private consumption. That’s fine, but who are you to say what purpose RSS feeds are republished for??? You aren’t the copyright owner of every single RSS feed are you? That’s what I thought…

and have you simply forgotten how easy it is too put a disclaimer enxt to your RSS feeds stating that the feed is only for personal and non-commercial use? Well, if you don’t, its your fault. When the law finally comes down on this, you’re going to see that there is probably going to be an implied license unless the holder of the field gives it away. Thats why its called SYNDICATION.

Taking and republshing content—no matter how much or how little—without the original author’s permission is a violation of U.S. and international Copyright laws.

Copyright law, when it comes to RSS, is a very very gray area and for you to say anything else is, again, highly irresponsible. It’s just as reasonable to believe that (as many scholars believe) an implicit license is granted to republish feed content along the bounds of common sense and fairness. You are not a lawyer, so stop talking like one.

Please cut your hair. It looks ridiculous.

While it’s true that RSS feeds ARE copyrighted and cannot be republished without permission, there is a very strong legal argument (that has been made by dozens of top scholars in the field) that says by publishing an RSS feed, one is granting an implicit license to syndicate that content…as long as there as a link back and the whole feed isn’t used (essentially, common sense applies.)
Of course, if there is a copyright notice saying don’t republish the feed or limits the use to personal/non-commercial use, that would be a violation.

But if there is no notice saying otherwise, it makes total sense. It’s digusting to see how this guy refers to “stealing” and “thieves.” Get that bug out of your ass, if authors don’t have a notice limiting their RSS feeds, they are probably fair game.

Says who? You? RSS feeds are to distribute and syndicate content. Any site aggregating that content has links back in the feed to the original site. Assuming someone just uses the first paragraph and does not republish the entire thing and leaves the links up you are nutty. Doesnt mean some fag like you wont still try to sue but just goes to show why the US is going down the shitter, you are all lawsuit-happy. If you dont want someone drawing from your feed, dont publish one.

The content owners permission is given when they syndicate their content for use on other sites. Don’t want to share your content, don’t publish a syndication feed.

That’s an erroneous assumption, Mr. Yellow. According to U.S. and international copyright law, the creator (or content owner) retains all rights until and unless one or more rights is explicity given away. Unless a the RSS/Atom feed specifically states that permission is granted for republication by other entities, then any such republication is a violation of copyright law.

Content owners provide RSS/Atom/whatever feeds for the convenience of human readers so that they may read the content in another medium or on a device other than a computer screen and Web browser. Regardless of how others choose to use the technology–indeed, regardless of even the original purpose of the technology–the intent of the creator/owner/publisher is the overriding legal concept in determining whether the content may be republished or if republication is unlawful. If the owner doesn’t give explicit permission either in a private agreement or via a notice accompanying the content in question, republishing the content is a violation of the creator’s/owner’s rights of copy. Ergo, up to US$50k plus damages per incident.

The content owners permission is given when they syndicate their content for use on other sites. Don’t want to share your content, don’t publish a syndication feed.

–Ben