If my major complaint with RSS was that it strips the frame from my content, then those who have posted to the effect ‘if he doesn’t like that, he should not make an RSS feed available’ would be correct.

However, as I have been making a full text RSS feed available since May of 2002, I am well aware that I, not the aggregator, am ‘stripping’ the frame.  That is not my primary concern – commercial use of my content by aggregators, specifically contextual advertising and subscription data mining without my consent, is my primary concern.

Right now, among the million bloggers, there are bird watching blogs, and anti-Michael Moore blogs, and Linux blogs.

Those bloggers do or do not view their blogs as part of a commercial pursuit, and do or do not wish to run advertising, and do or do not wish make use of information about their readership.

As far as I can tell, based on its stated intentions, the leading web-based aggregator is reserving the right to, for example, place Windows-based software ads on Linux blogs, and Anne Coulter ads on pro-Michael Moore sites, and to sell everybody’s subscription list to anyone.

All without notification or authorization by the blogger.

At least it hasn’t said otherwise in response to this brou-ha-ha.

This type of commercial use is, in my opinion, clearly copyright infringement, but since my protest is prospective in nature, people may not realize it until they see their own content serving as ‘editorial’ for someone else’s ads.  Or until a reader emails them to demand that they be taken off a mailing list the blogger didn’t know existed.

To argue that the creation of a RSS feed impliedly allows this type of uncontrolled commercial re-use is to argue that RSS strips all content of effective copyright protection.  I have not seen a compelling legal or policy argument as to why all RSS content should be public domain in this way. 

HTML content isn’t automatically public content.  The implied license is for the user’s browser to make the copy necessary to read the content.  You can’t re-purpose HTML content without consent.

As far as I can see, from a copyright point of view, the only thing different about RSS content is that the template formatting isn’t part of the work.

Regardless of whether the blogger has signed up for a CC license or whatever, he or she can prevent commercial re-use of the feed.  But should he or she?  Many posters have criticized my post not on the legal issue but as a business decision.

Maybe they’re right. 

So the question is not why, if I don’t like Bloglines, do I make a RSS feed available.

The question ought to be:

Is there a compelling business case for the blogger to waive effective commercial control of content in order so that the aggregator can make a full-text web-based feed available?

Or can aggregators accomodate bloggers who wish to maintain the non-commercial nature of their feeds?  I will guess that if Bloglines offers a commercial opt-out, its business model will still work.

 

 

 

There was another high-profile domain name highjacking this weekend of NYC’s ISP PANIX.COM, whose customers apparently suffered outages of service when the domain name was apparently transferred without authorization.

ICANN has a transfer policy that was born out of the Ack v. Nack wars between registrars, which policy specifies the quality and quantity of ‘acknowledgment’ between the ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ registrars and the registrant(s).  One article suggests that the winning registrar simply didn’t follow the protocol here.

In the meanwhile, you should consider putting a ‘registrar lock’ on your domain name, which prevents this sort of thing. 

A typical FAQ on registrar lock from Go Daddy is here.

Info on Domain Protect from NSI is here.

Dot Registrar’s DomSecure is here.

Well, Winerized and Scoblized in one day.  And many emails, some from subscribers, some not.

To clarify and answer some FAQs on my post below:

1.  This was not an attack on RSS or full-text aggregators as a class.  My concern is with a specific type of unauthorized commercial use of my feed.

2.  It’s not so much the stripping of the frame thing that bothers me – it’s the prospect of:

Creating the free content for advertisements that Bloglines will sell to other trademark law firms.  This isn’t baseless conjecture – read this discusssion of Bloglines’ plans for advertising keyed to the content of blogs.  At least with Google’s contextual ad program, the blog creator gets some money. 

Bloglines is also accumulating and possibly selling a list of my subscribers without so much as a hello, how are you, may we do this?  My decision to remove my site, viewed as rash by some, was triggered as much as what I viewed as the disingenuous nature of the response I received from Blogline when I wrote them.

That bothers me more than the frame stripping.  I know that other RSS readers frame strip.

3.  “If he doesn’t like this, then he shouldn’t make a RSS Feed available.”

Can I record NBC TV’s VHF broadcast and re-distribute the feed inserting my own paid advertisements?  If NBC doesn’t like it, then it shouldn’t broadcast over the air.

4. Legally, this is not a close case.  The content is copyrightable.  This blog is published pursuant to a NON-COMMERCIAL USE LICENSE.  Selling lists of my subscribers and running advertising would be commercial.  

5.  Having said that – let’s discuss what is a fair RSS environment.  I’m well aware that full-text aggregators is a preferred means of reading blog content and Blogline’s market share indicates that many prefer the web-based approach.

But the number of posts and emails that said “how can he lose 190 readers like that? is he crazy?” suggests a fear and a perception that a model where no blogger has control over the commercial re-use of their feed is the only model – and that’s unfair and plain wrong.

This website is published under a Creative Commons license that allows for non-commercial use, provided there is attribution.  Commercial use and derivative works are prohibited.

It was brought to my attention that a website named Bloglines was reproducing the Trademark Blog, surrounding it with its own frame, stripping the page of my contact info.  It identifies itself as a news aggregator.  It is not authorized to reproduce my content nor to change the appearance of my pages, which it does.  In response to my inquiry to Blogline’s CEO as to whether they sell advertising, he indicated that they ‘are not currently running advertising.’  Nevertheless, the Blogline’s home page currently is soliciting ‘targeted advertisements.’  I would also assume that Blogline is accumulating commercially-useful mailing lists (its privacy policy appears to allow it to sell information).  The privacy policy also has a provision entitled ‘mergers and acquisitions’ clearly allowing it to sell its lists.

Thus, in my view, Bloglines’ reproduction of my site is a commercial derivative work.  Bloglines has agreed to remove my site from its service and I thank it in advance for its cooperation.

I create content in part to promote my law firm, which I cannot do effectively if my contact info is removed.  I do not participate in targeted advertising programs because the majority of advertisers that target the keyword ‘trademark’ are competitors.  I cannot prevent such advertising when my page is reproduced and ‘framed’ by a third party. 

For the 190 of you who subscribe to this site through Bloglines, I apologize for any inconvenience, but I think that you will still find my site easily accessible, here. 

If anyone desires the convenience of being notified only when this blog (or most any blog) is updated, then I recommend subscribing to one of the many RSS programs available.

The Blog previously posted on Philip Morris’ obtaining the domain YESMOKE.COM from Otamedia SA, the largest seller of cigarettes on the Internet.  Otamedia conitnues to do business as YESSMOKES.COM and DUTYFREECIGS.COM, where it appears to offer grey good cigarettes.  It has now run afoul of the Attorney General of Oregon, which accuses it of multiple racketeering counts.