Title
Opt out of RSS
Short, concise description of the idea
An option to opt out of RSS/ATOM and any other syndication method that LJ chooses in the future
Full description of the ideaSome people aren't happy at the fact that sites like bloglines can duplicate their journal. They don't realise that this is an effect of having an RSS feed of it, and
(
Read more... )
If someone chooses to screen-scrape, the user can make a copyright-based complaint against them. If, however, data is obtained via RSS feed, the person displaying the content that existence of RSS feed gave them implicit license to do so.
Reply
Reply
Under what grounds? "Mommy, he's reading my public information and I don't like it because he's not using my style even though I posted this information publically!!"?
I'm honestly confused as to how you could possibly think that a copyright complaint could be filed on someone for merely reading what is already available for public consumption.
As far as the suggestion goes, if we want to give the tinfoil-hatters something to turn off RSS, that's fine with me, but the default should be on. We should also, IMO, write a FAQ about the fact that "Public" entries can be read by anyone by any method at any time even if the person does not have a LiveJournal account. I don't think a lot of the userbase understands what Public means, at least in the LJ context.
Reply
Reply
http://www.greatestjournal.com/~copperbadge/
That's a syndicated feed from this livejournal:
http://www.livejournal.com/~copperbadge/
The user copperbadge did not give Greatestjournal permission to repost his or her content. This isn't just a matter of one person reading it in their RSS viewer, it's a duplicate journal being created on another site.
If someone only wants their content posted on LJ, I think that's a pretty reasonable request. If I build a webpage and post a work of fiction on it, it doesn't give people permission to repost that work elsewhere on the internet. The same thing goes for journal entries.
Reply
Your last paragraph is not comparing like with like. If you use a webhost which is a webhost that has RSS feeds for content then maybe. Again there are security settings on LiveJournal (perhaps "copperbadge" prefers righteous indignation as opposed to actually using them) as well as, I'm sure, blogging sites that don't offer this most standard of features.
Reply
Please do not personally attack the person I used as an example. They may or may not have a problem with it, I have no idea. I just needed a quick example of a syndication account.
Due to the increasingly hostile tone of responses, I'll be turning off comment notification and not be making any more comments on this topic.
Reply
Not for reading it, for re-publishing it. Remember that mere public availability does not put a work in the "public domain." If I publish a book - publically, with no security settings - and you print copies of it for yourself, for people to check out of your library, I can't sue your library's patrons, but I certainly can sue you.
Reply
People need to remember that the LiveJournal community is representative of the greater Internet community. Public on LJ is public on the Internet itself.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Not that _I_ mind. I just think it ought to be up to individuals.
Reply
Not photocopying, but linking.
I don't think we're going to agree on this distinction.
Reply
I can't think of any way that that doesn't mean reproducing those words.
If it just had the title and a link, then yes, it would be linking.
Reply
That's absurd. Linking, yes. "Sharing" - that depends what you mean by the word. If you mean publishing your own content for the world to see ("sharing it with the world"), then yes; if you mean re-publishing other people's copyrighted content without permission (i.e., theft), then no. I mean, as in any copyright domain, there's a concept of "fair use," but that probably doesn't include two weeks' worth of the average journal.
Reply
Not photocopying, but linking.
I don't think we're going to agree on this distinction.
If it was passing the person's work off as their own, particularly with a complete lack of attribution, then it would not be fair use. But this is publicly available material with direct links back to the source, by the very nature of RSS.
Reply
Leave a comment