4 ms·

"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, e

by 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.
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    I'm a little perplexed that you'd refer me to the dictionary definition rather than one from statute. This is the satutory definition of publication: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. It was this definition I had in mind when questioning whether Nirmal's feed meets the legal threshold for publication. I'm not considering his work exempt under 'fair use' tests, but rather because Nirmal's involvement here is limited to disintermediating the gap between feed reader software and end content. The lack of monetarization by Nirmal has legal significance, as does the unavailability of the content in human-readable form on his website.
    - carbon8 17y ago
      "This is the satutory definition of publication" I don't see where it discusses "editorial selection" which you consider to be "a defining feature of publication" "disintermediating the gap between feed reader software and end content." Republishing content under copyright with XML tags and an .rss extension is no different than republishing content under copyright with HTML tags and an .html extension. "lack of monetarization by Nirmal has legal significance" Just because a website doesn't have ads doesn't mean it's suddenly immune to copyright law. It doesn't pass any of the fair use tests, and even if it did, courts are notorious for siding with copyright holders. "as does the unavailability of the content in human-readable form on his website" It's just as human-readable as HTML, both raw and rendered, and modern browsers (and all RSS readers) render it just as they do HTML. As I said, I am opposed to restrictive copyright and am devoted to CC, but copyright is what it is. If you disagree, feel free to publish a feed of full Associated Press articles, bring it to their attention and see what happens.
wheels 17y ago
Obviously [...] That's only if he shows up on their radar, which well, he probably won't. And if he does you just take the source he posted and run it on your local machine, which presumably would fall under fair use.

by carbon8 17y ago

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.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  I'm a little perplexed that you'd refer me to the dictionary definition rather than one from statute. This is the satutory definition of publication: Publication is the distribution of copies or phonorecords of a work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending. The offering to distribute copies or phonorecords to a group of persons for purposes of further distribution, public performance, or public display constitutes publication. A public performance or display of a work does not of itself constitute publication. It was this definition I had in mind when questioning whether Nirmal's feed meets the legal threshold for publication. I'm not considering his work exempt under 'fair use' tests, but rather because Nirmal's involvement here is limited to disintermediating the gap between feed reader software and end content. The lack of monetarization by Nirmal has legal significance, as does the unavailability of the content in human-readable form on his website.
  - carbon8 17y ago
    "This is the satutory definition of publication" I don't see where it discusses "editorial selection" which you consider to be "a defining feature of publication" "disintermediating the gap between feed reader software and end content." Republishing content under copyright with XML tags and an .rss extension is no different than republishing content under copyright with HTML tags and an .html extension. "lack of monetarization by Nirmal has legal significance" Just because a website doesn't have ads doesn't mean it's suddenly immune to copyright law. It doesn't pass any of the fair use tests, and even if it did, courts are notorious for siding with copyright holders. "as does the unavailability of the content in human-readable form on his website" It's just as human-readable as HTML, both raw and rendered, and modern browsers (and all RSS readers) render it just as they do HTML. As I said, I am opposed to restrictive copyright and am devoted to CC, but copyright is what it is. If you disagree, feel free to publish a feed of full Associated Press articles, bring it to their attention and see what happens.

wheels 17y ago

Obviously [...] That's only if he shows up on their radar, which well, he probably won't. And if he does you just take the source he posted and run it on your local machine, which presumably would fall under fair use.