Andy says I’m an RSS stealer thanks to Google Reader

Andy Beard notes that I’m stealing people’s content for my Google Reader link blog.

Absolutely! And, if anyone doesn’t like it, they can send me email and I’ll remove them from my feeds.

But my email lately has been much different. Turns out that these blogs are getting hundreds, and even thousands, of visits from my link blog.

Whoa? The full content is over there, so why would anyone click through to read the full blog?

Well, for one, I’m not printing everything that, say, TechCrunch puts up. So, if you are a new reader and are following my link blog you’ll probably want to click through to good posts to subscribe to the full feed yourself.

Second, if there are comments, or you want to comment on a post, you’ve gotta visit the full thing.

Anyway, what are the rules? Most people who use RSS know that they are giving permission for their feeds to be used in a non-commercial way. My link blog doesn’t have ads on it so fits inside the model of a non-commercial use.

I TOTALLY disagree with Andy that RSS was designed to be private. That’s TOTALLY FALSE. Ever since I can remember RSS is about PUBLIC uses of syndication technology.

87 thoughts on “Andy says I’m an RSS stealer thanks to Google Reader

  1. Maybe the next time you go to Google you can ask them to sort out how they have one division thzt considers your “reader blog” duplicate content that can be harmful to a source blog while there is another division that encourages you to use a “reader blog” in this manner. It’s a complete contradiction.

    Make sure you get Cutts and the other team in the same place at the same time – now this is good content – in fact, maybe you should have me conduct the interview!

  2. Maybe the next time you go to Google you can ask them to sort out how they have one division thzt considers your “reader blog” duplicate content that can be harmful to a source blog while there is another division that encourages you to use a “reader blog” in this manner. It’s a complete contradiction.

    Make sure you get Cutts and the other team in the same place at the same time – now this is good content – in fact, maybe you should have me conduct the interview!

  3. Simple scenario

    I thought you might be interested in this article I just read…

    What do you think?

    Now that post might be read by noone, or it might get 50 comments which the original author might want to respond to.
    Trackback is the method of notifiction that it exists. It is fair and propper use.

    You are suggesting I could legally scrape 10% of all the content held in the NY Times historical database, and not be prosecuted?

    It is just one website after all.

    That is potentially millions of articles

    And I could do it in partnership with 10 friends. I could have the whole of their content split over 10 interlinked domains?

    Wow!

    Maybe I do know more about copyright law than you.

    Darren hasn’t lost subscribers, he has lost the ability to track (a percentage of)his subscribers, as the number showing up on his feed stats has reduced.
    Take a look inside Feedburner…

    From the Google description: Feedfetcher is how Google grabs RSS or Atom feeds when users choose to add them to their Google homepage. Feedfetcher collects and periodically refreshes these user-initiated feeds, but does not index them in Blog Search or Google’s other search services.
    Google does not currently report the number of subscribers to your feed when it requests the feed, so the number of subscribers you have on Google home or Google Feed reader may be underrepresented by an unknown amount.

    And that was mentioned in my original article, which you supposedly read before your Google Reader interview. (you did comment to it)

    Why don’t they give publishers the same stats provided by other Feed Readers?

    Surely they should also give stats for linkblog content as well? (if you think it is so innocent)

    Was your podcast with the Google Reader guys a PR exercise or a real interview with searching questions?

    And do have a chat with Chris – he might be able to give you a more commercial perspective on this.

    RSS could/should be as private as email if that is the wish of the person who owns the content… the publisher.

    IANAL but believe it is your responsibility to ask specific permission from each feed owner you intend to republish on your linkblog.

  4. Simple scenario

    I thought you might be interested in this article I just read…

    What do you think?

    Now that post might be read by noone, or it might get 50 comments which the original author might want to respond to.
    Trackback is the method of notifiction that it exists. It is fair and propper use.

    You are suggesting I could legally scrape 10% of all the content held in the NY Times historical database, and not be prosecuted?

    It is just one website after all.

    That is potentially millions of articles

    And I could do it in partnership with 10 friends. I could have the whole of their content split over 10 interlinked domains?

    Wow!

    Maybe I do know more about copyright law than you.

    Darren hasn’t lost subscribers, he has lost the ability to track (a percentage of)his subscribers, as the number showing up on his feed stats has reduced.
    Take a look inside Feedburner…

    From the Google description: Feedfetcher is how Google grabs RSS or Atom feeds when users choose to add them to their Google homepage. Feedfetcher collects and periodically refreshes these user-initiated feeds, but does not index them in Blog Search or Google’s other search services.
    Google does not currently report the number of subscribers to your feed when it requests the feed, so the number of subscribers you have on Google home or Google Feed reader may be underrepresented by an unknown amount.

    And that was mentioned in my original article, which you supposedly read before your Google Reader interview. (you did comment to it)

    Why don’t they give publishers the same stats provided by other Feed Readers?

    Surely they should also give stats for linkblog content as well? (if you think it is so innocent)

    Was your podcast with the Google Reader guys a PR exercise or a real interview with searching questions?

    And do have a chat with Chris – he might be able to give you a more commercial perspective on this.

    RSS could/should be as private as email if that is the wish of the person who owns the content… the publisher.

    IANAL but believe it is your responsibility to ask specific permission from each feed owner you intend to republish on your linkblog.

  5. Andy: you do realize that I’m best man at Chris Pirillo’s wedding next month, right? Do you really want to quote him against me? Heheh.

    I helped talk him into using full text feeds and he hasn’t complained about my link blog yet. I doubt he will cause I send him a lot of traffic through it.

  6. Andy: you do realize that I’m best man at Chris Pirillo’s wedding next month, right? Do you really want to quote him against me? Heheh.

    I helped talk him into using full text feeds and he hasn’t complained about my link blog yet. I doubt he will cause I send him a lot of traffic through it.

  7. >If you are republishing someones content in whole or in part, or referring to them, isn’t it correct to trackback?

    No. Trackback is when you are writing something that would be interesting to that blog post reader. Not reposting the entire post. It’s pretty obvious you really haven’t looked into the Google Reader. Every post there links to the original post. No trackback needed. Trackbacks go into the comment areas on many blogs and are considered spam when used that way.

    >If you quoted the whole of a single article from the NY Times, they would come after you.

    The NY Times only does partial feeds. If they published full text feeds they wouldn’t come after me. By the way, have you ever talked with the publisher of the NY Times? I have.

    I also wouldn’t be taking EVERY SINGLE POST of the NY Times, only an occassional one. That usage is covered under fair use and Copyright Law.

    >My belief is that individual articles represent a “complete work” as far as intellectual property is concerned.

    False. A complete work is your entire publishing output. Your whole blog.

    I can quote 10% of a book, for instance, and it’ll be covered under fair use. Or 10% of a magazine article.

    Scobleizer isn’t one post. It’s all posts. So, if you take 10% of the posts then I believe that would be covered under fair use. I know people disagree with me. But then they gotta have the money to take it to court, don’t they? And, like I said, if you don’t want to be reblogged you have two choices:

    1) Ask me to stop. I will.
    2) Publish partial text feeds.

    >I believe that took additional skill to setup, and probably had much greater control over the content that was refed, such as an excerpt.

    No additional skill. I just needed to install an app. Any 12-year-old could have done it. I had no control at all, just like here.

    >I can setup a tag in Google Reader which is just your content, every single post, and then decide to share the tag as a seperate feed.

    Good for you. I really don’t care if you do that. How would people learn about it? And, would they see you as authoritative a source as they would me? Doubt it.

    >I have been watching the feed count of Darren Rouse at Problogger.net for the last week or so.
    >His readership it seems is going down… or so it seems.

    Hmmm, I’ve only posted one or maybe two items from Darren this week. So, are you saying my link blog is getting people to unsubscribe from Darren’s feed? If that’s what you really are saying then you’re simply crazy and not rational.

    >That has a huge effect on the value of advertising space.

    What’s funny is that the folks in my link blog actually tell me that I’m sending them MORE traffic than they had before. Which has a huge effect on the value of advertising.

    Like I said, you want to read comments? Gotta click over.

    Want to read everything someone publishes? Gotta click over.

    My link blog is a traffic generator. It sounds like you’re just jealous that I don’t read you.

    >This is a commercial blog.

    This isn’t my link blog. How did those people find my link blog?

    And, yes, I am doing it to provide a service to my readers. Thank you for noticing!

  8. >If you are republishing someones content in whole or in part, or referring to them, isn’t it correct to trackback?

    No. Trackback is when you are writing something that would be interesting to that blog post reader. Not reposting the entire post. It’s pretty obvious you really haven’t looked into the Google Reader. Every post there links to the original post. No trackback needed. Trackbacks go into the comment areas on many blogs and are considered spam when used that way.

    >If you quoted the whole of a single article from the NY Times, they would come after you.

    The NY Times only does partial feeds. If they published full text feeds they wouldn’t come after me. By the way, have you ever talked with the publisher of the NY Times? I have.

    I also wouldn’t be taking EVERY SINGLE POST of the NY Times, only an occassional one. That usage is covered under fair use and Copyright Law.

    >My belief is that individual articles represent a “complete work” as far as intellectual property is concerned.

    False. A complete work is your entire publishing output. Your whole blog.

    I can quote 10% of a book, for instance, and it’ll be covered under fair use. Or 10% of a magazine article.

    Scobleizer isn’t one post. It’s all posts. So, if you take 10% of the posts then I believe that would be covered under fair use. I know people disagree with me. But then they gotta have the money to take it to court, don’t they? And, like I said, if you don’t want to be reblogged you have two choices:

    1) Ask me to stop. I will.
    2) Publish partial text feeds.

    >I believe that took additional skill to setup, and probably had much greater control over the content that was refed, such as an excerpt.

    No additional skill. I just needed to install an app. Any 12-year-old could have done it. I had no control at all, just like here.

    >I can setup a tag in Google Reader which is just your content, every single post, and then decide to share the tag as a seperate feed.

    Good for you. I really don’t care if you do that. How would people learn about it? And, would they see you as authoritative a source as they would me? Doubt it.

    >I have been watching the feed count of Darren Rouse at Problogger.net for the last week or so.
    >His readership it seems is going down… or so it seems.

    Hmmm, I’ve only posted one or maybe two items from Darren this week. So, are you saying my link blog is getting people to unsubscribe from Darren’s feed? If that’s what you really are saying then you’re simply crazy and not rational.

    >That has a huge effect on the value of advertising space.

    What’s funny is that the folks in my link blog actually tell me that I’m sending them MORE traffic than they had before. Which has a huge effect on the value of advertising.

    Like I said, you want to read comments? Gotta click over.

    Want to read everything someone publishes? Gotta click over.

    My link blog is a traffic generator. It sounds like you’re just jealous that I don’t read you.

    >This is a commercial blog.

    This isn’t my link blog. How did those people find my link blog?

    And, yes, I am doing it to provide a service to my readers. Thank you for noticing!

  9. Andy: do you know anything about copyright? I don’t give my copyrights away to people who are making money off of them. But if you’re using Google Reader, or Bloglines, or want to republish my feeds on sites that don’t have ads, that give full credit, that don’t trackback and spam sites, then I’m cool with that.

    My feeds contain a nice copyright statement, even allowing commercial use.
    I do understand copyright though IANAL

    I worked in the computer games industry, mainly for a Polish developer of business apps and computer games. We faced 95% piracy of our products.

    If you are republishing someones content in whole or in part, or referring to them, isn’t it correct to trackback? That is the whole idea of trackback.

    Again. ALL FEEDS ARE FAIR GAME TO HAVE SOME POSTS REPRINTED. If they don’t want me to repost SOME of their posts (I don’t do all, which is what separates me from a splogger — my use is covered under fair use) then you can ask me to stop doing it, and I will. I’ll just remove you from my reading behavior and that’ll be the end of it.

    There are many national newspapers in the US that require payment just for an excerpt.
    They offer RSS feeds of their content to subscribers.

    My belief is that individual articles represent a “complete work” as far as intellectual property is concerned.

    If you quoted the whole of a single article from the NY Times, they would come after you.

    That’s not RSS. That’ll be RSS with DRM. Have at it, but it’s not the accepted RSS that we know and love today. It’ll be something else. Call it something else. The RSS defined by Dave Winer didn’t have DRM.

    The technology doesn’t need DRM as it is already fairly secure as far as delivery.

    What you are suggesting is similar to insisting that everyone use PGP for email, and that it shouldn’t be viewable outside the intended email client.

    I did a refeed with NewsGator, but had to add on a plugin to do that. I did that feed for years.

    I believe that took additional skill to setup, and probably had much greater control over the content that was refed, such as an excerpt.

    Your splog would be a splog if it took every single item from people in an automated way.

    You do realise that Google linkblogs can be setup to be fully automated?

    I can setup a tag in Google Reader which is just your content, every single post, and then decide to share the tag as a seperate feed.

    There is no sensible way on earth you can block it, or even know who is doing it.

    I have been watching the feed count of Darren Rouse at Problogger.net for the last week or so.

    His readership it seems is going down… or so it seems.

    I notice in your Podcast Google about all the stats they have. It is a shame that publishers will no longer be able to tell who is reading their content.

    That has a huge effect on the value of advertising space.

    Splogs also are used for two purposes: 1) TO get more links to items that they are being paid to SEO up. They need to hide those links inside other content so that Google doesn’t catch on and kick them out. 2) To put Google ads next to the content so that they can get ad money’s.

    I am not suggesting this is what might happen, but this scenario is open to abuse.

    “Oh, XYZ just said something nice about my last podcast” “Shift-S”

    This is a commercial blog. You have you book advertised in the sidebar, and you frequently link through to your commercial activities, rather than chatting about the roses in your garden.

    You are an influencer and an early adopter. Your activities and recommendations carry a lot of weight.
    Just adding something to your linkblog, if it is sending traffic to people as you claim, gives you additional influence.

    Don’t kid yourself about the commercial value of your linkblog content

    My link blog does neither.

    Really?

  10. Andy: do you know anything about copyright? I don’t give my copyrights away to people who are making money off of them. But if you’re using Google Reader, or Bloglines, or want to republish my feeds on sites that don’t have ads, that give full credit, that don’t trackback and spam sites, then I’m cool with that.

    My feeds contain a nice copyright statement, even allowing commercial use.
    I do understand copyright though IANAL

    I worked in the computer games industry, mainly for a Polish developer of business apps and computer games. We faced 95% piracy of our products.

    If you are republishing someones content in whole or in part, or referring to them, isn’t it correct to trackback? That is the whole idea of trackback.

    Again. ALL FEEDS ARE FAIR GAME TO HAVE SOME POSTS REPRINTED. If they don’t want me to repost SOME of their posts (I don’t do all, which is what separates me from a splogger — my use is covered under fair use) then you can ask me to stop doing it, and I will. I’ll just remove you from my reading behavior and that’ll be the end of it.

    There are many national newspapers in the US that require payment just for an excerpt.
    They offer RSS feeds of their content to subscribers.

    My belief is that individual articles represent a “complete work” as far as intellectual property is concerned.

    If you quoted the whole of a single article from the NY Times, they would come after you.

    That’s not RSS. That’ll be RSS with DRM. Have at it, but it’s not the accepted RSS that we know and love today. It’ll be something else. Call it something else. The RSS defined by Dave Winer didn’t have DRM.

    The technology doesn’t need DRM as it is already fairly secure as far as delivery.

    What you are suggesting is similar to insisting that everyone use PGP for email, and that it shouldn’t be viewable outside the intended email client.

    I did a refeed with NewsGator, but had to add on a plugin to do that. I did that feed for years.

    I believe that took additional skill to setup, and probably had much greater control over the content that was refed, such as an excerpt.

    Your splog would be a splog if it took every single item from people in an automated way.

    You do realise that Google linkblogs can be setup to be fully automated?

    I can setup a tag in Google Reader which is just your content, every single post, and then decide to share the tag as a seperate feed.

    There is no sensible way on earth you can block it, or even know who is doing it.

    I have been watching the feed count of Darren Rouse at Problogger.net for the last week or so.

    His readership it seems is going down… or so it seems.

    I notice in your Podcast Google about all the stats they have. It is a shame that publishers will no longer be able to tell who is reading their content.

    That has a huge effect on the value of advertising space.

    Splogs also are used for two purposes: 1) TO get more links to items that they are being paid to SEO up. They need to hide those links inside other content so that Google doesn’t catch on and kick them out. 2) To put Google ads next to the content so that they can get ad money’s.

    I am not suggesting this is what might happen, but this scenario is open to abuse.

    “Oh, XYZ just said something nice about my last podcast” “Shift-S”

    This is a commercial blog. You have you book advertised in the sidebar, and you frequently link through to your commercial activities, rather than chatting about the roses in your garden.

    You are an influencer and an early adopter. Your activities and recommendations carry a lot of weight.
    Just adding something to your linkblog, if it is sending traffic to people as you claim, gives you additional influence.

    Don’t kid yourself about the commercial value of your linkblog content

    My link blog does neither.

    Really?

  11. I found that I had to be signed in to googlereader (or gmail, is it the same?) to get a non-404 URL for the Subscribe button at the top of your link blog. I was able to use that signed-in URL to subscribe in Sharpreader, though; at first I thought I could *only* sub in google reader itself!

  12. I found that I had to be signed in to googlereader (or gmail, is it the same?) to get a non-404 URL for the Subscribe button at the top of your link blog. I was able to use that signed-in URL to subscribe in Sharpreader, though; at first I thought I could *only* sub in google reader itself!

  13. Andy: >>Actually it is much worse than a high quality splog, as you have don’t very little to add value to the content, such as indexing, folksonomy etc

    My value is in picking the gems out of 200 feeds for you so you don’t have to.

    Maurice: Andy is a Johnny come lately and is trying to make RSS into something it never was designed to do.

  14. Andy: >>Actually it is much worse than a high quality splog, as you have don’t very little to add value to the content, such as indexing, folksonomy etc

    My value is in picking the gems out of 200 feeds for you so you don’t have to.

    Maurice: Andy is a Johnny come lately and is trying to make RSS into something it never was designed to do.

  15. Andy have you not heard of Passwords?

    RRS was neaver eaven intended to be a private service other wise they would have built security into the damm protocol.

  16. One more point

    And, if you think my link blog is the same thing as a splog then you aren’t rational.

    Actually it is much worse than a high quality splog, as you have don’t very little to add value to the content, such as indexing, folksonomy etc

  17. One more point

    And, if you think my link blog is the same thing as a splog then you aren’t rational.

    Actually it is much worse than a high quality splog, as you have don’t very little to add value to the content, such as indexing, folksonomy etc

  18. Andy have you not heard of Passwords?

    RRS was neaver eaven intended to be a private service other wise they would have built security into the damm protocol.

  19. Andy: do you know anything about copyright? I don’t give my copyrights away to people who are making money off of them. But if you’re using Google Reader, or Bloglines, or want to republish my feeds on sites that don’t have ads, that give full credit, that don’t trackback and spam sites, then I’m cool with that.

    >>Do you conciously know which feeds you read (maybe Duncans) that are copyright, and which are under a CC?

    Again. ALL FEEDS ARE FAIR GAME TO HAVE SOME POSTS REPRINTED. If they don’t want me to repost SOME of their posts (I don’t do all, which is what separates me from a splogger — my use is covered under fair use) then you can ask me to stop doing it, and I will. I’ll just remove you from my reading behavior and that’ll be the end of it.

    >RSS could be the solution if we let it.

    That’s not RSS. That’ll be RSS with DRM. Have at it, but it’s not the accepted RSS that we know and love today. It’ll be something else. Call it something else. The RSS defined by Dave Winer didn’t have DRM.

    >It should also be noted that Google is the only Feed Reader that allows refeeding of shared content.

    I did a refeed with NewsGator, but had to add on a plugin to do that. I did that feed for years.

    >Your splog would be a splog if it took every single item from people in an automated way. Splogs also are used for two purposes: 1) TO get more links to items that they are being paid to SEO up. They need to hide those links inside other content so that Google doesn’t catch on and kick them out. 2) To put Google ads next to the content so that they can get ad money’s.

    My link blog does neither.

  20. Andy: do you know anything about copyright? I don’t give my copyrights away to people who are making money off of them. But if you’re using Google Reader, or Bloglines, or want to republish my feeds on sites that don’t have ads, that give full credit, that don’t trackback and spam sites, then I’m cool with that.

    >>Do you conciously know which feeds you read (maybe Duncans) that are copyright, and which are under a CC?

    Again. ALL FEEDS ARE FAIR GAME TO HAVE SOME POSTS REPRINTED. If they don’t want me to repost SOME of their posts (I don’t do all, which is what separates me from a splogger — my use is covered under fair use) then you can ask me to stop doing it, and I will. I’ll just remove you from my reading behavior and that’ll be the end of it.

    >RSS could be the solution if we let it.

    That’s not RSS. That’ll be RSS with DRM. Have at it, but it’s not the accepted RSS that we know and love today. It’ll be something else. Call it something else. The RSS defined by Dave Winer didn’t have DRM.

    >It should also be noted that Google is the only Feed Reader that allows refeeding of shared content.

    I did a refeed with NewsGator, but had to add on a plugin to do that. I did that feed for years.

    >Your splog would be a splog if it took every single item from people in an automated way. Splogs also are used for two purposes: 1) TO get more links to items that they are being paid to SEO up. They need to hide those links inside other content so that Google doesn’t catch on and kick them out. 2) To put Google ads next to the content so that they can get ad money’s.

    My link blog does neither.

  21. A little p.s. to my previous comment

    1. Please forgive the typos / spelling errors – I am in the middle of “crunch time” on several major projects, and just blogging between chat sessions with my programmers.

    2.

    Most people who use RSS know that they are giving permission for their feeds to be used in a non-commercial way

    Why do you have this in your sidebar?

    © Copyright 2006
    Robert Scoble

    Does that mean it is ok to share other people’s full feeds to the world, but not your own?

    Yeah, Gary, what’s neat about my link blog is I just hit “J J J J” until I find a post worth sharing then I hit “Shift-S” to share it with you. No other work required.

    Don’t you think it is too easy to make a mistake with the wrong feed? Do you conciously know which feeds you read (maybe Duncans) that are copyright, and which are under a CC?

    If you want to share something only with a small group of people, seems to me that email is a far better protocol.

    There are major problems with deliverability of email, and you can’t embed content as easily.

    RSS could be the solution if we let it.

    I have just registered a new domain name

    tech-splog.com

    I haven’t done anything with it yet.

    What I could easily do is take your linkblog and rework it.
    I would then take quite a few others.
    I would then accidentally add a few “friends” blogs that contain content with affiliate links and advertising.

    Obviously I would prevent search engines indexing the site.

    I would then get the people whose commercial feeds I use to link to it, or maybe even refeed excerpts from my splog.

    Obviously I would make the site useful, with heavy use of folksonomy so people could actually find content.

    None of my own personal advertising, but maybe I would include the occasional relevant post from my own blogs.

    By your current definition of what is right and propper, my splog would actually be totally legal, ethical, and even worthy of daily promotion on a high traffic blog.

    It should also be noted that Google is the only Feed Reader that allows refeeding of shared content. Every other service I have looked at only allows reading of the content.

  22. A little p.s. to my previous comment

    1. Please forgive the typos / spelling errors – I am in the middle of “crunch time” on several major projects, and just blogging between chat sessions with my programmers.

    2.

    Most people who use RSS know that they are giving permission for their feeds to be used in a non-commercial way

    Why do you have this in your sidebar?

    © Copyright 2006
    Robert Scoble

    Does that mean it is ok to share other people’s full feeds to the world, but not your own?

    Yeah, Gary, what’s neat about my link blog is I just hit “J J J J” until I find a post worth sharing then I hit “Shift-S” to share it with you. No other work required.

    Don’t you think it is too easy to make a mistake with the wrong feed? Do you conciously know which feeds you read (maybe Duncans) that are copyright, and which are under a CC?

    If you want to share something only with a small group of people, seems to me that email is a far better protocol.

    There are major problems with deliverability of email, and you can’t embed content as easily.

    RSS could be the solution if we let it.

    I have just registered a new domain name

    tech-splog.com

    I haven’t done anything with it yet.

    What I could easily do is take your linkblog and rework it.
    I would then take quite a few others.
    I would then accidentally add a few “friends” blogs that contain content with affiliate links and advertising.

    Obviously I would prevent search engines indexing the site.

    I would then get the people whose commercial feeds I use to link to it, or maybe even refeed excerpts from my splog.

    Obviously I would make the site useful, with heavy use of folksonomy so people could actually find content.

    None of my own personal advertising, but maybe I would include the occasional relevant post from my own blogs.

    By your current definition of what is right and propper, my splog would actually be totally legal, ethical, and even worthy of daily promotion on a high traffic blog.

    It should also be noted that Google is the only Feed Reader that allows refeeding of shared content. Every other service I have looked at only allows reading of the content.

  23. Michael: not sure what you mean. You mean you want to see a splog and compare it to my link blog? My link blog is linked to above. I’ll find you a splog if you want, but there’s lots of examples of them around if you search Technorati for more than one or two terms.

  24. Michael: not sure what you mean. You mean you want to see a splog and compare it to my link blog? My link blog is linked to above. I’ll find you a splog if you want, but there’s lots of examples of them around if you search Technorati for more than one or two terms.

  25. Robert,

    Can you point to one of the offending items – I don’t want to go off half cocked without seeing the actual copy, and the orignal

  26. Well, I guess if re-rendering the content of other people’s blogs is wrong, then we’d better all stop using search engines too.

  27. Well, I guess if re-rendering the content of other people’s blogs is wrong, then we’d better all stop using search engines too.

  28. Chris: absolutely.

    It’s easy to keep people from viewing your RSS feed, if you want to keep it private. Just lock down your server to allow only certain people to have access. I don’t get what the big deal is. If you want to share something only with a small group of people, seems to me that email is a far better protocol.

  29. Chris: absolutely.

    It’s easy to keep people from viewing your RSS feed, if you want to keep it private. Just lock down your server to allow only certain people to have access. I don’t get what the big deal is. If you want to share something only with a small group of people, seems to me that email is a far better protocol.

  30. It is apparent to me that the people opposed to “link sharing” have a personal interest in feeds staying private. The problem being that there is no form of authentication when you provide an RSS link. It is there fault for investing efforts into this technology without understanding the full ramifications. Surely Google could start a non-distribution standard, some sort of broadcast flag for RSS, that would be fine and good. But it is hardly their responsibility. But, in the current state of things, providing an RSS feed and expecting it to be private is like putting something on regular TV and saying only certain people can watch. You would need some sort of On-Demand feature, which I’m sure there is a demand for but RSS does not fit the bill. It pains me to see people try and subvert progress. However what you are doing is the exact opposite of spam. You are sorting through the garbage and sifting out the useful stuff.

  31. It is apparent to me that the people opposed to “link sharing” have a personal interest in feeds staying private. The problem being that there is no form of authentication when you provide an RSS link. It is there fault for investing efforts into this technology without understanding the full ramifications. Surely Google could start a non-distribution standard, some sort of broadcast flag for RSS, that would be fine and good. But it is hardly their responsibility. But, in the current state of things, providing an RSS feed and expecting it to be private is like putting something on regular TV and saying only certain people can watch. You would need some sort of On-Demand feature, which I’m sure there is a demand for but RSS does not fit the bill. It pains me to see people try and subvert progress. However what you are doing is the exact opposite of spam. You are sorting through the garbage and sifting out the useful stuff.

  32. Duncan: spam bloggers are doing it for commercial reasons. Not allowed under standard RSS behavior. Not that you’re going to stop them anyway. I tried, believe me, got one guy shut down and then he started sending out email spam with my name in it. Not to mention three more splogs popped up. Sigh.

    And, if you think my link blog is the same thing as a splog then you aren’t rational.

    When I say I’m not reposting the full feed, please be clear. Out of, say, 20 items on a blog, I probably only post one or two. A splogger will republish every single one and sploggers make it difficult to figure out where the content came from. My link blog is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

  33. Duncan: spam bloggers are doing it for commercial reasons. Not allowed under standard RSS behavior. Not that you’re going to stop them anyway. I tried, believe me, got one guy shut down and then he started sending out email spam with my name in it. Not to mention three more splogs popped up. Sigh.

    And, if you think my link blog is the same thing as a splog then you aren’t rational.

    When I say I’m not reposting the full feed, please be clear. Out of, say, 20 items on a blog, I probably only post one or two. A splogger will republish every single one and sploggers make it difficult to figure out where the content came from. My link blog is TOTALLY DIFFERENT.

  34. Robert
    I’ve got to say how deeply, deeply disappointed I am that you’ve decided to do this. Your republishing full feeds on your link blog, and without permission up front, is a breach of copyright, and for that matter the DMCA as well, no matter the fact that you promise to take them down if asked. What you’ve just done is given a green light to the thousands of spam bloggers out there who doing the same thing, the same people I and many others from content creating companies fight day in, day out. I can see some of the responses now: “well Robert Scoble is doing it”. I’ve heard the whole “but I’m helping you, I’m helping you drive traffic to your site” argument you are using before: it’s a standard defense of a spam blogger. I notice you argue that your not always republishing the full feed, but certainly with the feeds that your using that actually publish full feeds, you are indeed reposting them. And one last thing: remember the whole debate you championed in relation to publishing full feeds, indeed you actually stopped reading blogs with part feeds: well since you’re now essentially publishing a spam blog, you might well now understand my previous position against you on the matter, because it’s sites such as these that force people to go down the part feed route. I suppose I can only ask: please reconsider!

  35. Yeah, Gary, what’s neat about my link blog is I just hit “J J J J” until I find a post worth sharing then I hit “Shift-S” to share it with you. No other work required.

  36. Robert
    I’ve got to say how deeply, deeply disappointed I am that you’ve decided to do this. Your republishing full feeds on your link blog, and without permission up front, is a breach of copyright, and for that matter the DMCA as well, no matter the fact that you promise to take them down if asked. What you’ve just done is given a green light to the thousands of spam bloggers out there who doing the same thing, the same people I and many others from content creating companies fight day in, day out. I can see some of the responses now: “well Robert Scoble is doing it”. I’ve heard the whole “but I’m helping you, I’m helping you drive traffic to your site” argument you are using before: it’s a standard defense of a spam blogger. I notice you argue that your not always republishing the full feed, but certainly with the feeds that your using that actually publish full feeds, you are indeed reposting them. And one last thing: remember the whole debate you championed in relation to publishing full feeds, indeed you actually stopped reading blogs with part feeds: well since you’re now essentially publishing a spam blog, you might well now understand my previous position against you on the matter, because it’s sites such as these that force people to go down the part feed route. I suppose I can only ask: please reconsider!

  37. Yeah, Gary, what’s neat about my link blog is I just hit “J J J J” until I find a post worth sharing then I hit “Shift-S” to share it with you. No other work required.

  38. I’d like a link blog to be a title and a short snippet of text much like Digg. If it doesn’t already exist, RSS could use a “blurb” field that the original author can write for each item that resyndication services like Google could use just for instances like this.

    Before anyone says “but you can just post an entry and that says “blah says this” and a link”, I mean a quick and automated way so that the middle man, Scoble in this instance, doesn’t have to use any brain power to exercise and the original authors point of view is not lost in translation.

  39. I’d like a link blog to be a title and a short snippet of text much like Digg. If it doesn’t already exist, RSS could use a “blurb” field that the original author can write for each item that resyndication services like Google could use just for instances like this.

    Before anyone says “but you can just post an entry and that says “blah says this” and a link”, I mean a quick and automated way so that the middle man, Scoble in this instance, doesn’t have to use any brain power to exercise and the original authors point of view is not lost in translation.

  40. Andy: agree with you that people need to know. But the RSS system — as has been common practice for years — is public, not private.

    If you want something to be private you need to lock it down on your server and give everyone you want to have access to it a password.

    By the way, my feed is copyrighted too. But I know that participation in the RSS system requires letting other people use my feed for non commercial uses (and, in some cases, like Bloglines, even a little bit of commercialism).

    If you don’t like that, it’s very easy to opt out. Just send me an email and I’ll stop reading your feed.

  41. Andy: agree with you that people need to know. But the RSS system — as has been common practice for years — is public, not private.

    If you want something to be private you need to lock it down on your server and give everyone you want to have access to it a password.

    By the way, my feed is copyrighted too. But I know that participation in the RSS system requires letting other people use my feed for non commercial uses (and, in some cases, like Bloglines, even a little bit of commercialism).

    If you don’t like that, it’s very easy to opt out. Just send me an email and I’ll stop reading your feed.

  42. There is currently no way to label a feed as private, preventing people sharing it with their friends.

    It would be very easy for Google to implement a standard, such that content, if the owner wished, could remain private.

    There are no rules forcing you to adopt a CC policy for your RSS feeds, in fact many feeds are specifically copywrite.

    Google provide no ststistics to Feedburner, and I have seen many subscription numbers decrease from the use of Google Reader.

    In addition Google effectively allows you to refeed the content elsewhere. Who is going to block Google from picking up their content?

    This invalidates any attempt you might attempt to block rogue crawlers.

    I am sure there are alternative ways to implement this, and I believe need to be aware of the dangers in sharing content they are not authorised to share.

    RSS does not have to be purely about public uses

  43. There is currently no way to label a feed as private, preventing people sharing it with their friends.

    It would be very easy for Google to implement a standard, such that content, if the owner wished, could remain private.

    There are no rules forcing you to adopt a CC policy for your RSS feeds, in fact many feeds are specifically copywrite.

    Google provide no ststistics to Feedburner, and I have seen many subscription numbers decrease from the use of Google Reader.

    In addition Google effectively allows you to refeed the content elsewhere. Who is going to block Google from picking up their content?

    This invalidates any attempt you might attempt to block rogue crawlers.

    I am sure there are alternative ways to implement this, and I believe need to be aware of the dangers in sharing content they are not authorised to share.

    RSS does not have to be purely about public uses

Comments are closed.