On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: > Does a hub have a right (legal or ethical) > to modify a feed in any way before delivery? I think you'll find that any "right" to modify the content hinges on the intent or purpose for the modification.
People that choose to publish to syndication feeds or choose to send content to syndicating hubs are doing so in order to have their content distributed to readers and discovered by search engines. All but the most dense of these publishers will be aware that their content will at least be copied in order to facilitate the distribution and discovery that they seek. This copying is treated as permitted and legal in the same way and for the same reason that copying an HTML file into a browser's memory is considered permitted. The copying is "facilitative." It is as though there were an implied license permitting copying when it facilitates the express purpose of syndication and discovery. However, that implied license -- which permits something (copying) that would not normally be permitted under copyright, does not weaken any of the copyright constraints on non-facilitative copying nor does it permit derivative works, etc. I argue that conversion of content from one format to another, as long as that conversion is facilitative for distribution or discovery should be considered to be covered by the same kind of implied license that covers the copying of data during syndication. Publishing content in formats that conform to one or another standard creates a reasonable presumption that the publisher is actually aware of the standards to which his content conforms. Thus, I would suggest that it would make sense for the standards themselves to include (potentially in non-normative text), some discussion of those transformations that one should expect to be performed on content conforming to the spec. Thus, I suggest that the PSHB spec should mention that use of the spec implies that some facilitative copying will occur and that it is expected that whether or not the spec requires conversion from RSS to Atom or vice versa, that such conversions may occur. By including such statements, users of the specifications, or formats that conform to the specifications, can be said to have received fair notice of what will happen. This will tend to strengthen the argument that use of the formats, tagging conventions, etc. does, in fact, create the implied license to perform facilitative copying and transformations. bob wyman On Mon, Dec 28, 2009 at 2:13 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: > Does a hub have a right (legal or ethical) to modify a feed in any way > before delivery? > > Yes, I choose the hub, but the spec allows for federation. Could three hubs > down the chain take my feed and make modifications to it that may not be to > my liking? > > I hope not. Maybe Corp A doesn't want their feed being converted to Corp > B's protocol. > > >
