4 ms·

How do you know these sites are not retrieving content using RSS feeds? In this case the "social contract" says that the content owner consent to syndication.

How do you know these sites are not retrieving content using RSS feeds? In this case the "social contract" says that the content owner consent to syndication. In reality any reproduction of content is a violation of copyright law- no if, ands, or buts about it. Even Google's act of displaying text from web pages in their search results is infringement but of course they are safe because they are so useful and the web would be nothing without search engines. But there is no implicit permission being given. The same rule likely applies to mashups (although I do not know of any that have been taken to court.) Why litigate if an app helps users consume your content (there are exceptions of course. For example, if page views on your actual site decrease and you lose money as a result.)

pedalpete 18y ago
your comment about "any reproduction of content is a violation of copyright law" is absolutely wrong and has been overruled in the courts many times (perfect 10 v. google, sheffield news v. sheffield times). Google can display text from web pages because they attribute the text to the site and provide a link to the original source. There are limitations on use which is why google paid for their book search functionality.
- villageidiot 18y ago
  The question is: how much is too much? Seems like that's a question for the courts to decide. The NYT is about to find out the answer to this question: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10128600-93.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10128600-93.html
- kwamenum86 18y ago
  What you have come up with is a fuzzy case, not clear cut. Even with fair use, the way search engines use content can easily be considered infringement. I still stand by my statement and the only reason search engines are allowed to copy petabytes of COPYRIGHTED material is because they are so darn useful. I don't know of any other service that sidesteps intellectual property rights (whether through fair use or not) and makes a good amount of money that has been allowed to exist and thrive.

pedalpete 18y ago

your comment about "any reproduction of content is a violation of copyright law" is absolutely wrong and has been overruled in the courts many times (perfect 10 v. google, sheffield news v. sheffield times). Google can display text from web pages because they attribute the text to the site and provide a link to the original source. There are limitations on use which is why google paid for their book search functionality.

villageidiot 18y ago
The question is: how much is too much? Seems like that's a question for the courts to decide. The NYT is about to find out the answer to this question: http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10128600-93.html http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10128600-93.html
kwamenum86 18y ago
What you have come up with is a fuzzy case, not clear cut. Even with fair use, the way search engines use content can easily be considered infringement. I still stand by my statement and the only reason search engines are allowed to copy petabytes of COPYRIGHTED material is because they are so darn useful. I don't know of any other service that sidesteps intellectual property rights (whether through fair use or not) and makes a good amount of money that has been allowed to exist and thrive.