I feel like there is maybe slight confusion over what is meant about "arbitrary content". Really, it's "arbitrary payload". It's not syndicated vs not syndicated or authorized vs unauthorized. It's just bytes, which is no different than any other transport protocol (TCP, HTTP, etc) as Bob pointed out.
My personal feeling is that this is not within the realm of concern for this protocol. While it might be nice to try and solve this problem somehow, this protocol will not make a difference and trying would only make it more complex. -jeff On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 3:34 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: > Yes, Bob I think I agree and yes that was long but probably worth it on > this type of topic. > > My point was aimed at "arbitrary content." If the protocol is to support > "arbitrary content" then the content may NOT be from one of the formats we > typically associate with syndication. > > I have no point but to try and keep awareness up on what might be backlash > from content owners once it becomes clear that redistribution of something > like a "normal" web page is happening. > > For the record, I'm all for it and would argue in the news organizations > I've been in that it was a benefit to us. I would probably lose. I lost > when I pushed for full content RSS feeds in 2003. > > I think the challenge is in a site giving PuSH services the right to push > "arbitrary content" but simultaneously NOT allowing reproduction of their > content on other sites. > > Hard to imagine how such a world would work without a icense being > attached to syndicated media objects. > > Hard to imagine that working as well. > > > > > On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:48 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Matt, >> The important distinction is between syndication of content and >> unauthorized distribution. >> >> In general, copyright law (at least as interpreted by courts in the US) >> prevents any unauthorized copying of protected content that is not required >> in the normal act of reading or consuming that content. In other words, >> facilitative copying is permitted as it is seen to be part of the mechanics >> of reading. However, even while such copying is permitted, it is only >> permitted for the express purpose of facilitating the reading of the >> content and other things that can be done with copied content do not become >> permitted simply because one of the reasons for copying was to facilitate >> reading. Thus, just because you can copy content into temporary caches, >> screen buffers, etc. doesn't mean that you are allowed to then republish >> that content in a modified form (unless necessary to permit reading), as >> part of a collection, or whatever. >> >> Syndication via feeds, PSHB, etc. should be seen as providing nothing >> different from what is provided by TCP/IP, web protocols, etc. These are >> simply delivery mechanisms that move content from a publisher to a reader. >> The fact that copying is involved in these transfers is no more interesting >> than the copying that occurs for any TCP/IP packet or the copying that >> occurs in a web browser. Thus, just as we say that a publisher who puts >> content on the web in the form of an HTML page implicitly licenses >> facilitative copying by browsers, we can say that publishers who "publish" >> content within a syndication network (either by creating feeds or by >> pushing fat-pings to hubs) is also implicitly licensing that content to >> flow through that network. The key thing to understand, of course, is that >> the mere fact that some copying was done to facilitate syndication and >> subsequent reading does not in any way weaken copyright protection for any >> other purpose. The copies are just as protected as the originals. >> >> One might argue that the implicit license to syndicate doesn't exist in >> the case where a scraper is used to convert content such as a web page into >> a syndication format without the permission of the publisher. However, >> while this case might generate some debate, we shouldn't question that >> publishers who knowingly convert, or permit the conversion of, their >> content to syndication formats have provided a limited implicit license to >> syndicate. >> >> If the rule I suggest above is *not* accepted, then what you'll find is >> that none of the syndication systems in use today can be safely operated >> without fear of legal problems. The problem is that if format conversion or >> injection isn't the signal for the implicit license to syndicate, then >> *any* publisher could create feeds and inject content and then object when >> the syndication network works as designed and intended. This is known as >> "poisoning the stream..." (There have been cases of people who created >> feeds that contained "licenses" in them and then insisted that they were >> being damaged by all feed syndicators that didn't pay attention to those >> licenses. This sort of entrapment by poisoning the stream clearly should >> not be permitted.) >> >> Many have suggested that greater control over distribution can and should >> be given to publishers via some form of machine readable license to >> distribute content. However, whether or not such machine readable licenses >> would be useful (I think they would create a mess), it is important to >> realize that no non-legislative authority, such as a standards group, can >> usefully define the format of such a machine readable license. The reason >> is that only legislative bodies (i.e. governments) can define the means by >> which one party is encumbered with legal responsibility to a second party. >> A non-legislative body might define a format, however, that wouldn't given >> any a legal requirement to pay attention to stuff encoded in that license >> -- unless there were some explicit and private contractual relationship >> between the parties. >> >> You may argue that Creative Commons is an example of a machine readable >> license and if CC licenses are possible, then others should be as well. >> However, it is important to note that Creative Commons licenses do not, in >> any circumstance, impose greater restrictions on use than what is provided >> by copyright. Creative Commons licenses do not restrict usage, rather they >> only grant rights that would otherwise be prohibited by copyright. (Note: >> The CC "non-commercial" license doesn't actually "prohibit" commercial use, >> rather it simply says that commercial use rights are not granted and are >> thus are restricted to whatever copyright law would provide or not provide.) >> >> Sorry for going on so long. I've just heard this concern before and am >> trying to anticipate a number of directions that this conversation normally >> goes in... Basically, I don't think we have a problem as long as we're only >> talking about syndication and as long as the content syndicated comes >> either in a format which is known to be a "syndication format" (i.e. >> RSS/Atom, etc.) or if the publisher injects the content into the network. >> In both cases, there is an implicit, limited license to syndicate. >> >> bob wyman >> >> >> >> On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 5:02 PM, Julien <[email protected]>wrote: >> >>> This is a message sent my Matt Terenzio posted in another topic. As I >>> believe this is a topic worth discussing, I'm reposting it here : >>> >>> I brought an issue up in the early days and got a few decent >>> responses and >>> a number of irrelevant attacks which I guess was because I was >>> considered >>> the RSSCloud guy on the PuSH list. Just thought I'd toss that in >>> here. ; ) >>> But it had to do with the architecture of PubSubHubbub and >>> respecting >>> copyright. >>> At some point in a a widely grey area there is a line between >>> syndication >>> and unauthorized redistribution of content. I don't know where it >>> is and it >>> might even begin with the publishers intention or implicit license >>> they >>> give by making a feed available. >>> While I tend to lean toward more open licenses for content, not >>> everyone >>> does. And because hubs can daisy chain content down lines, whether >>> or not >>> your hub is respectful might not mean you aren't part of a >>> questionable >>> distribution chain. >>> That last part is certainly not the strong part of what I'm >>> saying. Just >>> saying we should think about what it means to redistribute parts >>> of the web >>> that owners might not have intended for syndication. >>> Aside from that concern which I'm sure you have already thunk >>> about, I >>> think it has incredible potential with the explosion of semantic >>> web data >>> arriving on the web. >>> So much so that I could see feeds being unnecessary for many sites >>> since >>> all the pages are marked up well enough that the description of >>> the content >>> is just as easily digestible from the web page as it was from the >>> feeds. >>> Almost, at least, though there would still be the overhead of the >>> crawl, I >>> guess. But for many blog style sites, a sematically marked up home >>> page is >>> practically as good as a feed. >>> >> >> > -- Jeff Lindsay http://progrium.com
