Robert Sayre wrote:
> if you have a a feed of ten entries, with one entry attributed
> to someone else, your feed-level authorship still applies to
> all ten entries.
This doesn't seem to make sense. There are two scopes for authorship
and copyright in a feed:
1. The feed as a collection
2. An entry within the feed/collection
As far as the law is concerned, copyright and authorship can be
independently claimed for either or both scopes. What you seem to be saying
is that we should simply discard the distinction between these two scopes
and support only the second. What benefit do we get for losing the ability
to express a claim of authorship/copyright which is limited to the
collection and not its entries?
Objecting to inheritance does not require discarding the distinction
between the two claim scopes. One could say, for instance, that a feed-level
claim applies only to the feed as a collection and that entry-level claims
must be explicitly stated in the entry -- feed-level data is not inherited.
However, I think you'll find that it is so "intuitively obvious" to people
that feed-level claims are inherited by entries that it would be an absolute
waste of time to try to enforce or even encourage that people don't apply
it. Just saying it ain't so doesn't make it not so...
bob wyman
