On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:34 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. > That is why I was careful to say that "injection" into a syndication network by a publisher would also create an implicit license. Format isn't the only way to create an implicit license. > 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. >>> >> >> >
