Forum Moderators: open
[edited by: bill at 4:16 am (utc) on May 22, 2007]
[edit reason] no URLs please [/edit]
You should be also be registering your copyrights. Doing so entitles you to statutory damages as well as attorney fees. Copyright violations are no small thing
If you provide it then likely someone is ripping it off and it's usually not the little guys that do it.
for example: AHN has recently discontinued all free services because Moreover.com was taking thousands od headlines and summaries and resyndicating, inserting ads etc.... AHN apparently never gave them permission... I see much lawsuit fun ensueing. Sure would hate to be Moreover about now. AFP and AP have also sued Google, resulting in the search engine from settling out of court.
[edited by: tedster at 5:20 pm (utc) on May 22, 2007]
[edit reason] member request [/edit]
If someone displays your feed they are more or less tuning in and have made no copy of your content.... if there is no copy made then have they committed copyright infringement?
In my mind this is not an issue that has been resolved. I am sure others will disagree. Just take due diligence making sure that everything is branded as yours and that all links point back to you.
If they are tuning into your feed and taking your branding and links out then they are altering your feed and this would fall more to infringement.
This is all my Libertarian view though so take it with a grain of salt.
I am still not sure what the copyright legalities are concerning RSS.If someone displays your feed they are more or less tuning in and have made no copy of your content.... if there is no copy made then have they committed copyright infringement?
In my mind this is not an issue that has been resolved. I am sure others will disagree. Just take due diligence making sure that everything is branded as yours and that all links point back to you.
If they are tuning into your feed and taking your branding and links out then they are altering your feed and this would fall more to infringement.
This is all my Libertarian view though so take it with a grain of salt.
I am very allured to have the same train of thoughts on the topic. If someone really doesn't make a single copy of your content but is just subscribed to your RSS feeds, then, logically, then there ain't any right infringement in the case. Correct me if I am wrong.
RSS doesn't provide a free license to use the content in any manner you wish. The difference is the allowed use and license.
If a site provides RSS for use in a news reader for private, personal and non-commercial use and you take that feed and use it on a website you are in violation.
You are incorrect.RSS doesn't provide a free license to use the content in any manner you wish. The difference is the allowed use and license.
If a site provides RSS for use in a news reader for private, personal and non-commercial use and you take that feed and use it on a website you are in violation.
In violation of what exactly?
Can't my website be a non-commercial use?
It is like saying I can't listen to your radio station in my restaurant. I am not recording your radio program, I am simply tuning in at my place of business.
[edited by: Demaestro at 3:40 pm (utc) on May 28, 2007]
There is really no way around it.
You are right though based on what I saw from searching ASCAP and BMI payments. I am somewhere else in the world though so it is hard to say what the "right" thing is.
Again just another reason we need to have a digital world re-assessment of what is and isn't allowable. Oh and where those rules apply.
