It seems that my entry on Top Ten Sources sparked some nice debate around the blogosphere. Everyone from Susan Mernit to Dave Winer has been brought into the shuffle. I discussed Top Ten Sources with John Palfrey via email, and he let me know that the company is alerting writers of the impending aggregation, however Kevin and Michael commented on my entry saying they received no such notification.
I’ve left comments at other blogs defending my position against people who see nothing wrong with republishing RSS content sans-permission, and I thought it time to write my viewpoint out as a full entry.
Your Copyright
At the bottom of every page of this site is a copyright notice. At the top of every page, in the HTML, is a Creative Commons license that more explicitly details what you can and cannot do with this creative work. RSS feeds republish said content, so why is it that people feel RSS feeds are in the public domain where you can do whatever you want with them? RSS, after all, is a way of redistributing content, so why do so many detractors feel that adhering to the copyright affixed to my writing is such a horrible concept?
Aggregation
Just like you are free to browse this site and read the content, you are also free to read this content via RSS, which is just another way of repackaging this content. If you want to redistribute any part of my content, you need to attribute it to me. If you are going to redistribute, in whole, my content, ask me first and I’ll let you know if that’s alright and how I want you to attribute me. It’s pretty simple if you think about it — you can read and browse and link all you want, but if you want to redistribute my content, just ask me first. The keyword here is first however.
If you redistribute my content on your site, and 1) don’t ask for permission first, or 2) don’t attribute me, I’m probably going to be upset and send you a tersely-worded email. If you are redistributing my content and running advertising next to it, that’s based on my content, then I’m definitely going to be upset. You and your site can easily get around these nasty emails by just emailing me first because like I said, as long as you ask my permission first there’s a 99% chance that I’ll be friendly and let you do whatever you please.
I left this comment on an entry:
“I think there’s a big difference between making a site’s RSS feed available for personal usage (aka, feed reading) and a company republishing it in an effort to draw more readers to its site. Top Ten Sources effectively has no original content and uses other people’s content to draw in readers. That, in my mind, is the crossing the line from personal use to copyright infringement.”
This sums up my thoughts pretty well, however Jim Moore has this to say as an argument:
“Get a life. HTML is a worldwide common open resource. That is its value. If you want to publish in a private proprietary way, make your site by subsciption, or write for a magazine.”
[...]
“RSS content is also part of a worldwide web commons. When you put it out, you presume if will be read, used, aggregated, etc. If you want to create a private feed, do so. If you want to feed only headlines and summaries, like the New York Times, do that. It is entirely your choice.”
If Jim’s argument holds water, then he’s saying that anything on the web is part of the worldwide web commons, and can therefore be read, used, aggregated, etc. What about an illustrator putting his or her work in their online portfolio? Can that just be used, sans-restrictions, any way that someone feels fit, say for a worldwide portfolio site that republishes copyrighted content without asking? My creative work is expressed in writing, their creative work is expressed in pixels, how is that different? Maybe he’s suggesting that all websites have registration locks on them if they want readers not to steal creative work. If so, then that is a world I’d rather not live in.
About Mike Rundle
“Get a life. HTML is a worldwide common open resource. That is its value. If you want to publish in a private proprietary way, make your site by subsciption, or write for a magazine.”
That has got to be the most dumb ass argument I’ve seen over the past couple of days. HTML is, how you say… code?
Text that appears between HTML code is content which is essentially copyrighted the moment you type it. It doesn’t matter the format in which it is distributed, if you write it, it’s yours.
And frankly, if I go to the trouble of saying publicly that my text is copyrighted to me with use restrictions defined, then you damn well better adhere to my wishes.
How about we pull content from Harvard’s site and redistribute it as our own? We could make ourselves look pretty good.
Let us not forget that before the 1980′s, works were not copyrighted unless specifically noted. Some people, apparently, are in denial and want to think that’s the way it still works.
Read Copyright Basics from the U.S. Copyright office. In particular:
“Copyright protects ‘original works of authorship’ that are fixed in a tangible form of expression.” –Which they note includes literary works, including those which are viewed with the aid of a machine.
“Copyright [is] Secured Automatically upon Creation”
“The way in which copyright protection is secured is frequently misunderstood. No publication or registration or other action in the Copyright Office is required to secure copyright.”
“Copyright is secured automatically when the work is created, and a work is “created” when it is fixed in a copy or phonorecord for the first time. ‘Copies’ are material objects from which a work can be read or visually perceived either directly or with the aid of a machine or device, such as books, manuscripts, sheet music, film, videotape, or microfilm.”
In a nutshell, it matters not what we all “perceive” copyright to be. The law of the land defines it clearly.
By the definition above, provided by the U.S. Copyright Office, Top Ten Sources is creating “copies” of copyrighted works. Big no-no.
Also:
“The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U. S. law, although it is often beneficial.”
You don’t even have to put the mark at the bottom of your articles. But I find, as they suggest, that it is beneficial.
Sorry man, but Web != Public Domain.
Good article, Mike. We all need to pay more attention to this.
Wait a second! HTML is code you say? Maybe I can republish that! I mean, if you’re using tags within your content, doesn’t that make it just code as well? Yeah, ‘course it does.
“I’m probably going to be upset and send you a tersely-worded email”
I agree with you that content theft via RSS shouldn’t happen, but what is stopping anyone?
No offense, but a “tersely-worded email” is going to stop someone as much as a cop who glares at someone that speeds. Neither are very threatening.
Countries need to step up to bat and stop scammers, phishers, warez distributors, and all the like in their own country.
We all know that isn’t going to happen, so content theft is something we deal with…unfortunately.
Brandon
Wouldn’t sending a tensely worded email make you a bully? ;-)
I agree with you completely here – I’m not a fan of scrapers, splogs, spam blogs, or others that steal content. It might just be my time in the humor side of the internet where content theft is rampant and those that try to protect their intellectual property get stomped on, en masse, by the abusers.
Matt
Most people do not and will not care about this subject until it’s their work in question.
Some of us have had our writings misused. For others, it may not be words, but art, illustration, photography, or even software.
I recently had a photograph of mine used in an advertising campaign that is reaching over 3.5 million people through a prominent religious website and a national magazine. That would be great, if the institution or their agency had the integrity to contact me about it (which would have allowed me to ask the girl in the photograph if she wanted her face everywhere, which she does not).
The moment it happens to you, you will know why Mike and I feel strongly about this.
I find it interesting that some do not care if sites or companies, like the one in question, republish their content. Frankly, I find it appalling that anyone would be flattered by the acts of thieves, but I am not “you” and you are entitled to that view. I would really like to encourage these people to place a higher value on their content.
Continuing to freely share your works for the greater good does not require you to let some guy in a cheap suit steal your content to make himself rich.
While I’m on a roll, note the Top Ten Sources’ TOS:
“We begin with the premise that you would not offer RSS or related feeds of your copyrighted material if you did not want those feeds rendered in aggregators.”
That’s a fine premise for an aggregator. That’s a heck of an assumption for a news hub that publishes the full text.
Many would argue that TTS is more than “just aggregating”, based on their presentation of the content in question (not linking back to the original document, hotlinking images to steal bandwidth, etc). A service like this should be opt-in, not opt-out.
I am neither a 9 Rules affiliate nor fanboy, and yet I have a lot of respect for these guys, simply because they respect their members’ content. And because of that, they have created a network that people actually want to be a part of.
As it exists now, TTS seems to operate “use it now, ask questions later”. How different from the aforementioned 9 Rules. Not only is this a problem, it’s also what makes it illegal: using content without the author’s prior consent. So some don’t care; others do, please ask first.
Simply put:
If TTS was more of a directory, and less of a content hub (republishing), nobody would be complaining. Imagine the public outroar if Google News, Slashdot, Digg, or even Newsvine were to republish content in this manner.
Whew. That was all in one breath.
*passes out*
I just added an explicit image, statement, and link to our CC license in our RSS feed for the sites that are aggregating us. We’ll see how that works. An updated post about it here.
I left a comment on burningbird that responds to your and the other comments on coldcoffee: http://weblog.burningbird.net/2006/01/18/that-old-copyright-song/#comment23038 and i just read another good one by FVL: http://weblog.burningbird.net/2006/01/18/that-old-copyright-song/#comment23075