I know what you mean, and its logical on one level. But on the otherhand Im sure there is rather a lot of material that is copyrighted, being distributed via RSS and other methods.
For example if I download a podcast from the BBC, its still copyrighted by the BBC. They have chosen how the distribution mechanism works, and that I am allowed to download it etc. But its still copyrighted by them, if I tried to actually redistribute the file by hosting it elsewhere, by playing it on another radio station or selling it on CD, they could throw the book at me. I think it boils down to longstanding arguments and confusions on the internet about what 'distribution' and 'copying' really mean. The web blurred the issue slightly, are we really saying that if someone embeds a blip video on their site, they are rehosting and redistributing it, when in fact the actual media is still on the original server? The way I see it, embedding, hotlinking etc content, is more akin to 'public performance' of a work, than redistributing it. But what I think isnt at all the same as whats law, I dunno, it gets a bit messy. What I am reasonably sure of is that choosing to distribute something in a relatively open way, is not incompatible with attaching copyright to your work. The BBC let me videotape stuff off the telly and technically keep it for a fixed amount of time, and this doesnt harm their ability to claim damages from people who abuse their copyright on the same material, doesnt give me the right to sell that video etc. Cheers Steve Elbows --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "Mike Meiser" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: It's unproven in court so far as I know... but yes... > maybe putting your media in RSS has some implications as for your copy > rights. > > BTW, there's really no conflict at all with RSS and the creative > commons licensces, which is exactly the point. The creative commons > licensces were fundamentally designed to say "heh, copyright law is > defective in this new metaverse, it conflicts with the new reality > that everything must be copied." > > I'd personally love to see an RSS feed with the copyright labeled as > "all rights reserved" this would seem an absolute contradiction of > syndication which fundamentally requires copying and redistribution. >
