>I can't see any technical reason [other than software defaults] that authors/publishers can't just publish their own full feed. Hence I'd argue that the full-feed tool would be more or less redundant in an opt-in model. [Making a pretty PDF, however, is quite clever.]
I think that simply underlines the point that it is not a technical, but a moral and ethical, question. >I'm not sure where I'd want to draw the line on the question of what processing of websites is acceptable; I would tend to argue that most forms of processing for personal use are okay unless explicitly forbidden; but where third parties are involved, they should be much more cautious; I would agree that broadersheet/fivefilters ought to ensure they have a licence to redistribute their content. I appreciate the point - it's an interesting debate. The BBC particularly quite rightly get shirty if you start building a commercial service from their content, but are unofficially quite relaxed. There's also a big issue around building a service which facilitates scraping and splogging. There's enough trouble our there without sharp developers giving potential auto-scrape-toolkits to every idiot who wants one. The figures are that we have lost perhaps 700-1000 journalists from Regional Papers recently due to loss of revenue. I think the "full feed PDF paper" type service is better placed as a value added service for content providers, or a licensed use of content by third parties. The Northern Echo (not a small paper), for example, cut 15% last autumn. It's quite important. Once the content creators have gone bust there's nothing left to build full feeds from. >A question: would you object to my hypothetical butler cutting out only the most interesting stories from the free paper, clipping them together and handing them to me? No, but I don't think that is a good comparison. Although of course, if you're butler is a PR agency charging you for the privilege he would need a cuttings licence from the Newspaper Licensing Authority ! M. On Sat, Jul 4, 2009 at 4:53 PM, 'Dragon' Dave McKee <[email protected]>wrote: > > There's a tool presented by a commenter that will take a partial feed, > > scrape the content articles it refers to, and provide a full feed. > > > > I'm surprised how strongly I feel about this: such services must be > > opt-in for each author. > > I can't see any technical reason [other than software defaults] that > authors/publishers can't just publish their own full feed. Hence I'd > argue that the full-feed tool would be more or less redundant in an > opt-in model. [Making a pretty PDF, however, is quite clever.] > > I'm not sure where I'd want to draw the line on the question of what > processing of websites is acceptable; I would tend to argue that most > forms of processing for personal use are okay unless explicitly > forbidden; but where third parties are involved, they should be much > more cautious; I would agree that broadersheet/fivefilters ought to > ensure they have a licence to redistribute their content. > > A question: would you object to my hypothetical butler cutting out > only the most interesting stories from the free paper, clipping them > together and handing them to me? > > Dave. > > _______________________________________________ > Mailing list [email protected] > Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: > https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public >
_______________________________________________ Mailing list [email protected] Archive, settings, or unsubscribe: https://secure.mysociety.org/admin/lists/mailman/listinfo/developers-public
