Repurposed content - more complex than you think
TechDirt raises the issue of content republishing, and asks how seriously we ought to take it. The problem is that copyright law and "fair use" were conceived in an era where re-purposing content took a lot more effort than it does now.
The example TechDirt points at is Om Malik's latest on the subject. Now, I don't think Om is being unreasonable, which is why this point made me stop and think:
First of all, it's a very fine line. How different is it from some random site reposting someone's content and an RSS aggregator reposting content. For example, here's Bloglines reposting Om's content, which it's done for years. Should he be upset about that? People say their complaint is that others are making money off of their content -- but that's not a realistic complaint. The NY Times book review makes a ton of money off of other people's content -- by adding value to it and promoting it.
The Times falls into fair use pretty clearly, but sites like Bloglines (and Newsgator online, etc) are a little harder to deal with. I subscribe to my feed in Bloglines (I imported a BottomFeeder export as a test over a year ago), and there it is - full content. Heck, I'm not directly credited, either - I see "Cincom Product Manager" listed, but not my name. Am I upset? heck no, I'm happy that so many people subscribe to my content.
Which is where the difficulty is - what's the difference (legally) between a splog grabbing my content and Bloglines doing it? I see the difference, but it's kind of like the old saw about pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" (the late justice Potter Stewart). I can't define online content theft either, but I "know it when I see it".
So where does that leave us? I suspect that we may end up with "fair use" meaning correct attribution and a link back to the original source. I don't see how else to do it.
Comments
intent of repurposing is the key
[ Troy Brumley] December 28, 2005 13:09:50.347
Comment by Troy Brumley
Splogs just try to get people to come to their site and click through their ads, which is what google does, come to think of it :) But, someplace like bloglines people do have some idea that the content is yours, they subscribe to your feed. Bloglines may centrally host a copy of the content, but it's clear that someone wants to read your stuff. Technorati, Icerocket, Del.icio.us, all these places add some value and it's clear who owns the base content and what the value they add is.
Splogs just seem to grab stuff to be found by search, and add nothing else to me as a content originator, nor to me as a content consumer. Hell, when I find I've stumbled into a splog, I bail immediately.
Splogs are parasitic. NY Times book reviews, Technorati (for all my bitching about their quality), Icerocket, Google, Del.icio.us, Yahoo!, and others are symbiotic.
Agreed
[Jonathan] December 29, 2005 15:03:33.468
I have to agree with Troy, content reposting requires a give and take. You have to be willing to actively support the original authors in order to make it work. Splogs take everything and offer back, many news aggregating sites offer a great deal of benefit to readers but none to the authors they lift from. The problem, however, is judging intent. Sure, a splog with a million ads framing stolen copy has a clear intent, but what about "magazine" sites that compile feeds from a similar genre? http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=149 There are no easy answers and there's a lot of gray area here. However, I hold true to my favorite maxim, when in doubt, ask. It only takes a couple of seconds to ask permission to aggregate a feed or repost an article. Perhaps sometimes it truly is easier to ask permission than seek forgiveness...
I don't like splogs either
[ James Robertson] December 29, 2005 16:02:50.214
Comment by James Robertson
All I'm saying is, it's hard to find a clear, easily defined dividing line. I know what a splog is when I see one, but how do define it?