Legally, the copyright of comments doesn't seem to work the way Disqus says. If you comment on my weblog, I have a right to reproduce it as I see fit, as you've

Legally, the copyright of comments doesn't seem to work the way Disqus says. If you comment on my weblog, I have a right to reproduce it as I see fit, as you've voluntarily given it to me for the express purpose of reproducing it, knowing full well that I will reproduce it indefinitely. In fact, people who comment are almost invariably disappointed (or worse) if their comments are not reproduced immediately and indefinitely. The website owner is actually doing commenters a service by publishing their comments. In the case where the website owner publishes links to the commenters' sites; the website owner has also compensated the commenters with a bartered advertisement. Even without publishing the link, the website owner has provided a service to the commenter that the commenter has purposefully chosen to utilize. On the other hand, nobody has given the comment aggregator (Backtype in this case) any permission to reproduce any part of the website and/or comments. Backtype's republication of the content is allowed only if it is done as fair use. From looking at what Backtype does with my own comments, its usage of the content isn't anywhere close to fair use. That will be especially true if/when they attempt to monetize my comments. I personally would rather not have Backtype (or any other company) republish my comments without my permission. Instead, I would rather monetize my own comments myself, on my own site, by implementing a similar service myself (see http://firehose.diveintomark.org/ http://firehose.diveintomark.org/ for an example).