39 ms·
> I don't like the idea of showing ads next to my content in this situation, but I'm pretty sure I have no right to control that. You have every right in the w
by nothrabannosir 11y ago
> I don't like the idea of showing ads next to my content in this situation, but I'm pretty sure I have no right to control that.
You have every right in the world to control that. It's called copyright. If you choose a license for your content that prohibits putting ads next to it, then there you go: you used your right to control that.
Not saying it's practical, or business wise, or good PR, or, ... But definitely your right.
- TillE 11y agoThe default "license" with copyright is basically "all rights reserved". Whenever you start copying or distributing someone else's material without permission, you'd better be pretty confident in a fair use exemption or some other legal argument.
- ikeboy 11y ago(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_v._Google,_Inc.) might apply here.
- MikeTaylor 11y agoThat is true; but surely provision of an RSS feed constitutes a presumptive licence to redistribute.
- ikeboy 11y agoI don't see why. RSS can be used by users on their own device, there's no need for a central aggregator.
- wlesieutre 11y agoWhy would serving RSS to RSS readers imply any different a license than serving HTML to a web browser?