On Wed, Oct 7, 2009 at 9:34 AM, Julien Genestoux <[email protected]> wrote: > Matthew, > There might be a risk, yes. But I think there is a clear distinction between > "pushing content" and "re-publising". When we "push" that content, it has no > URL (meaning, it can't be accesses anywhere : if you're not subscribed to > the feed, you'll miss it forever), however, when you re-publish, > technically, you duplicate that content. > In my idea, pushing the content presents a very low risk, however, > republishing presents one. > Also, in a way, search engine would "fit" in the risk you're describing, > because they actually fetch the content, exactly like we do. I am not sure > this is a valid 'legal' defense to say : "if you sue us, sue Google too", > but at least it proves that they "let" someone do what they don't want us to > do.
To put it another way: Google Reader and all other RSS aggregators actively republish all of the content they pull from feeds. I believe this is fair use as long as the feeds are not improperly transformed (e.g., removing/modifying ads).
