4 ms·

Counting the seconds until someone flings a takedown order. Aggregating full content without permission definitely exceeds the bounds of "fair use".

jncraton 17y ago
It's been working at least for a few months without getting shut down.
- knieveltech 17y ago
  So it's under the radar. That doesn't change the fact that aggregating full content without permission exceeds the bounds of "fair use".
  - akkartik 17y ago
    How is this different from their own RSS feed? I think it's just saving them bandwidth.
    - petercooper 17y ago
      It might not feature their advertising, their FeedFlare (if on FeedBurner - a great way to drive people to comments sections), special formatting, or tracking graphics that they use for statistics. Before the inevitable "But I don't care!" responses, whether or not these things are interesting to us as readers is not relevant - they're still differences that could cause publishers to be unhappy and cry foul. On the plus side, since the HN news is just an aggregation of many sources, it could encourage people to find new sources and subscribe to them directly in the long run. As a content provider myself, I'd be happy with this aggregator if it was indicated in each post what the original source is.. if that's missing, it needs to be added. We want attribution even if we're being syndicated ;-)
  - jncraton 17y ago
    I agree completely that the service is infringing on the intellectual property of the authors of stories that HN links to. I just don't think that it is likely to get shut down, because, as you said, it is under the radar.
anigbrowl 17y ago
By whom? Nirmal, who created the tool, but whose work could be easily copied? Google, who have no control over which feeds people choose to subscribe to? Me, for just installing it? Actually, I might well prefer just the first paragraph and/or the top 3 three comments - I don't know yet whether I want the full articles. However, I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you say. These debates will continue until online publishers come up with a convenient and affordable micropayment system. I'm not opposed to advertising per se, but I am against visual the clutter it often entails. And sorry to HN designers, but the same applies to a lot of websites. Less is more.
- carbon8 17y ago
  "By whom?" Obviously by anyone hosting the feed for republishing full content without copy permission. I'm not happy with the current trend in copyright law, either, but it is was it is. "I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you say." It really is. Edit: your downvotes and personal opinions won't stop you from getting takedown notices and losing lawsuits. Ignore the legal reality at your own peril.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Obviously by Nirmal [...] Really? But Nirmal has no way of knowing what articles people will see fit to post to HN. How can he negotiate permission with all possible content providers, given that I may link tomorrow to a brand new blog created later today? I question whether he scan truly be said to be publishing, when it appears that the feed in question simply reformats without asserting any ownership over the content or monetizing it in any way, and involves no editorial selection on his part, something I consider a defining feature of publication.
    - carbon8 17y ago
      "Really?" Yes, really. And it's necessary to have a more thorough understanding of the current issues in copyright law and recognize that it's based on statutes and case law before speculating about what may or may not violate fair use. Words also already have definitions (eg, http://www.answers.com/publication http://www.answers.com/publication and http://www.answers.com/publish http://www.answers.com/publish) and, in a legal setting, those are the definitions you'll need to work with whether or not you have your own. I realize that this sounds somewhat ungracious (sorry! I mean no harm), but it's a legal issue, not a purely speculative philosophical issue.
RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
For what it's worth I agree with you, but that also makes me wonder how it is that scribd can copy an entire copyrighted article without asking permission, and then say that to take it down they require a request that "meets all criteria for validity as a DMCA affidavit." That seems wrong to me. If it's copyrighted, and they copy it the entire thing without permission, how is that not wrong? EDIT: I see this has been discussed before many times, but this time I ask - scribd are apparently effectively immune because users upload things to them. They then claim that if it's copyrighted, it's not their fault. HN has uploaded content to them without the author's permission. Does that make HN a copyright violator?
- carbon8 17y ago
  HN only publishes links and, often but not always, headlines. Most publishers are OK with this, but not all. Recently the AP has reaffirmed that they consider copying headlines to be copyright violations and are threatening to again go after sites (notably google).
- qeorge 17y ago
  IANAL, but here's my understanding of the DMCA's Safe Harbour provision, which is why scribd and other UGC sites (e.g. YouTube, isohunt, flickr) aren't held responsible for copyrighted material appearing on their sites. UGC websites can be protected by the Safe Harbour provision under the following conditions: - The site provides a legal, legitimate service (i.e. fair use) - The amount of UGC on the site is too much to reasonably police - They have an employee registered with the US govt as the agent for handling all copyright claims. Simply providing an email address, contact form, or even a mailing address doesn't count. - When they receive legitimate removal requests from the copyright holders they remove the content in a timely manner. As long as these conditions are met they can't be held liable for copyright violations which occur through the use of their product. HN is a different case, because the amount of content copied from the source site (the headline, and only in some cases) is a small portion of the original work. Furthermore, HN is adding value to the content through ranking and community, which makes it a distinct piece of intellectual property. Similarly, you can legally make a collage which contains copyrighted material because the collage itself is a distinct entity (more than the sum of its parts). How much of the page content can scraped and presented, or how large the pieces of a collage can be, is vividly debated. For me personally, its a bit of a Potter Stewart situation, and this feed is absolutely copyright infringement.

jncraton 17y ago

It's been working at least for a few months without getting shut down.

knieveltech 17y ago
So it's under the radar. That doesn't change the fact that aggregating full content without permission exceeds the bounds of "fair use".
- akkartik 17y ago
  How is this different from their own RSS feed? I think it's just saving them bandwidth.
  - petercooper 17y ago
    It might not feature their advertising, their FeedFlare (if on FeedBurner - a great way to drive people to comments sections), special formatting, or tracking graphics that they use for statistics. Before the inevitable "But I don't care!" responses, whether or not these things are interesting to us as readers is not relevant - they're still differences that could cause publishers to be unhappy and cry foul. On the plus side, since the HN news is just an aggregation of many sources, it could encourage people to find new sources and subscribe to them directly in the long run. As a content provider myself, I'd be happy with this aggregator if it was indicated in each post what the original source is.. if that's missing, it needs to be added. We want attribution even if we're being syndicated ;-)
- jncraton 17y ago
  I agree completely that the service is infringing on the intellectual property of the authors of stories that HN links to. I just don't think that it is likely to get shut down, because, as you said, it is under the radar.

anigbrowl 17y ago

By whom? Nirmal, who created the tool, but whose work could be easily copied? Google, who have no control over which feeds people choose to subscribe to? Me, for just installing it? Actually, I might well prefer just the first paragraph and/or the top 3 three comments - I don't know yet whether I want the full articles. However, I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you say. These debates will continue until online publishers come up with a convenient and affordable micropayment system. I'm not opposed to advertising per se, but I am against visual the clutter it often entails. And sorry to HN designers, but the same applies to a lot of websites. Less is more.

carbon8 17y ago
"By whom?" Obviously by anyone hosting the feed for republishing full content without copy permission. I'm not happy with the current trend in copyright law, either, but it is was it is. "I don't think it's as cut-and-dried as you say." It really is. Edit: your downvotes and personal opinions won't stop you from getting takedown notices and losing lawsuits. Ignore the legal reality at your own peril.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Obviously by Nirmal [...] Really? But Nirmal has no way of knowing what articles people will see fit to post to HN. How can he negotiate permission with all possible content providers, given that I may link tomorrow to a brand new blog created later today? I question whether he scan truly be said to be publishing, when it appears that the feed in question simply reformats without asserting any ownership over the content or monetizing it in any way, and involves no editorial selection on his part, something I consider a defining feature of publication.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    "Really?" Yes, really. And it's necessary to have a more thorough understanding of the current issues in copyright law and recognize that it's based on statutes and case law before speculating about what may or may not violate fair use. Words also already have definitions (eg, http://www.answers.com/publication http://www.answers.com/publication and http://www.answers.com/publish http://www.answers.com/publish) and, in a legal setting, those are the definitions you'll need to work with whether or not you have your own. I realize that this sounds somewhat ungracious (sorry! I mean no harm), but it's a legal issue, not a purely speculative philosophical issue.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

For what it's worth I agree with you, but that also makes me wonder how it is that scribd can copy an entire copyrighted article without asking permission, and then say that to take it down they require a request that "meets all criteria for validity as a DMCA affidavit." That seems wrong to me. If it's copyrighted, and they copy it the entire thing without permission, how is that not wrong? EDIT: I see this has been discussed before many times, but this time I ask - scribd are apparently effectively immune because users upload things to them. They then claim that if it's copyrighted, it's not their fault. HN has uploaded content to them without the author's permission. Does that make HN a copyright violator?

carbon8 17y ago
HN only publishes links and, often but not always, headlines. Most publishers are OK with this, but not all. Recently the AP has reaffirmed that they consider copying headlines to be copyright violations and are threatening to again go after sites (notably google).
qeorge 17y ago
IANAL, but here's my understanding of the DMCA's Safe Harbour provision, which is why scribd and other UGC sites (e.g. YouTube, isohunt, flickr) aren't held responsible for copyrighted material appearing on their sites. UGC websites can be protected by the Safe Harbour provision under the following conditions: - The site provides a legal, legitimate service (i.e. fair use) - The amount of UGC on the site is too much to reasonably police - They have an employee registered with the US govt as the agent for handling all copyright claims. Simply providing an email address, contact form, or even a mailing address doesn't count. - When they receive legitimate removal requests from the copyright holders they remove the content in a timely manner. As long as these conditions are met they can't be held liable for copyright violations which occur through the use of their product. HN is a different case, because the amount of content copied from the source site (the headline, and only in some cases) is a small portion of the original work. Furthermore, HN is adding value to the content through ranking and community, which makes it a distinct piece of intellectual property. Similarly, you can legally make a collage which contains copyrighted material because the collage itself is a distinct entity (more than the sum of its parts). How much of the page content can scraped and presented, or how large the pieces of a collage can be, is vividly debated. For me personally, its a bit of a Potter Stewart situation, and this feed is absolutely copyright infringement.