Bob and others. I'd love to discuss this off list. It's off topic. Sorry folks.
On Sun, Nov 20, 2011 at 7:12 PM, Matthew Terenzio <[email protected]>wrote: > 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. >>>>> >>>> >>>> >>> >> >
