Well Bob, I (and I think most of the world) does not consider publishing an HTML page "injection" into the network
(I do actually see that is a possible interpretation, but am arguing what I think is the broad consensus) So as long as any page doesn't have a rel=hub it shouldn't end up going through a hub, correct? On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 6:40 PM, Bob Wyman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. >>>> >>> >>> >> >
