"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 publicati

"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.