Very interesting comments. I read it and I accepted it =) Generally, I think it confirms my point about the fact that PubSubHubbus solves a technical problem and that another point are NOT defined/affected.
On Mon, Nov 22, 2010 at 4:34 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > Julien Genestoux <[email protected]> wrote: > > people who assumed that by default all the data available > > via PubSubHubbub was expected to be free and accessible > > by any one *for any purpose*. > > Copyright law is a great deal simpler than most people seem to think... All > content consumers must remember that unless there is an explicit grant of > rights then copyright restrictions apply to **all** content -- no matter > how, where, when or why it is accessed. The only grey area applies to > copying which is facilitative to the act of reading the content. (For > instance, copying of data over the web, into internal buffers of a browser, > display device, cache, etc.) While the issue of such facilitative copying is > not covered by much written law, it has been recognized in quite a number of > court cases. (at least in the US). > > In the case of feeds (whether they are push or pull feeds) what this means > is that the law generally permits you to copy content in order to move it > towards users, re-syndicate, etc. However, you are still prohibited from > republishing the data, making derivative works, etc. In other words, if you > want to conform to the law, you need to pass downstream pretty much whatever > you read from the original feed. The only exceptions, in the absence of > explicit permissions, would be those that are permitted under copyright law > -- i.e fair use, facilitative copying, etc. > > So, pulling data from a syndication feed (push or pull) does not, in fact, > allow you to use the data for any purpose other than syndication itself > unless there is an explicit grant of rights -- perhaps in the form of a > Creative Commons license. > > Publishers should realize that just as copyright law restricts what > consumers can do with others' content, it also limits publishers' rights. > For instance, without some sort of prior agreement between a consumer and a > publisher, the publisher can't impose restrictions on the use of content > which limit consumers more than copyright law does. Remember, under > copyright law, "all rights" means only "all those rights protected by > copyright law" -- it does not actually mean "all rights." In general, what > this means is that any "license" information inserted into published content > has no effect if it is attempting to be more restrictive than copyright law. > (Note: Stuff that says: "If you read this, you accept it." Is not > effective...) > > bob wyman > > On Wed, Nov 17, 2010 at 6:13 PM, Julien Genestoux < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hello everybody, >> >> Today, twice I've had talks with people who assumed that by default all >> the data available via PubSubHubbub was expected to be free and accessible >> by any one for any purpose. >> I think this is a 'wrong' idea and it doesn't serve us very well, so I >> wrote a blog post about it : http://blog.superfeedr.com/not-a-license/ >> >> I think it's awesome that so many services, like Buzz grant an almost >> unlimited and full access to all their data, but I think we (and maybe >> anyone advocating) should make sure that we do not give the idea that by >> implementing PubSubHubbub people give away their data and any rights around >> it. >> >> Any feedback is much appreciated! Has anyone bumped into the same >> mis-understanding? or worse, had them? >> >> Julien >> > >
