Are we free to use and edit RSS content as we wish?

OK, I'll do that

Paul,

OK, go ahead. I'll enjoy this debate.

Paul,

That's your opinion, although you state it as fact. This is why books update their copyrights.

In reality, if someone asks you to remove their pheed, you do so. As much out of courtesy as any legalities.

And the use of "only need to prove"...Every lawyer I've spoken to says this proving damages the tough part. First, you have to prove wrong-doing, then the hard part is proving how much you were damage, in specific monetary terms.

Just how do you plan to prove how many sales you didn't get?

BTW, the "set" concept comes from a copyright attorney, it isn't my original idea. And, it's one everyone should be aware of, and able to defend if you want to take a copyright case to court.

Unlike you, I never said it would or wouldn't hold up. I merely brought up the point for Brian to comment on, since he is an attorney. Giving specific legal advice as you just did, is not only a disservice, it's dangerous.

I know one thing, if I was on EITHER side of a copyright case, I'd want to be aware of the concept, and I sure wouldn't dismiss it as easily as you did, at least without a few resources to back up your opinion.

In the end, it often comes to what the jury thinks, and IMO, as a defendant, you should probably give them as much to think about as possible. And as a plaintiff, one should be prepared to argue their side of the matter, not simply dismiss it.

Not to mention, the concept of being "set" is a secondary defense...The main defense being that an RSS button (with no further restrictions obvious/near the button) is the primary defense.

As a defendant, you only need one defense to stick, and even though I'm not a lawyer, I suggest you use as many as possible. The concept of "set" is just another option.

And, I also suggest anyone in this situation bring up the concept of being "set" to they lawyer and not listen to either Paul or I. Again, I never said it was a defense, I merely wrote "what if?"

This isn't an excuse to use other's content just because you can get away with it...It's more helpful to those trying to protect their content, as there are issues concerning copyright they may not be aware of.

Wrong usage of the term "red herring", as it isn't meant to distract. If being "set" is a legal defense, it will be up to you to prove the document was finished.

The point about comments is a separate, but related issue and one worthy of discussion, as many blogs now offer two pheeds, one for owner posts and one for comments.

So now the question becomes, are you submitting someone else's content to the ping sites, without their permission?

But we do agree that the blog owner doesn't own the comments, and if there are more than one comment from different people, there isn't a single owner of the pheed.

BTW, on my Duelz forum, I stipulate any and all posts made to the forum are posted to the Public Domain. You have to agree to this before you can register (post).

Again, you're making a specific claim, stating it as fact, yet present no evidence. I merely brought up a point that anyone on either side of the issue should be prepared to argue. You're saying to dismiss it without any thought, solely based on your own declaration. Again, very dangerous to hand out specific legal advice.

I suggest that we should be prepared to argue both sides of the legal discussion, as we may find ourselves on either side at any given time. You suggest we should just forget about an entire legal concept.

[quote]
The real challenge is that you want everything to be automated, and the formulas set so that human action is reduced to an absolute minimum.

I do not cede my rights to someone else's desire for convenience and profit at my expense.
[quote]

Me either, which is why I don't like people like you claiming you represent the wants and needs of every publisher of an RSS pheed. Your position has been stated by yourself and others on this thread. I'd say an objecting opinion is needed.

Not to mention it is YOU trying to take away MY rights, not the other way around.

I will state my own opinion:

Yes, I want people to see my RSS button and know it is OK to use my RSS pheed, in respect to "fair use"...Meaning don't modify my words, or use my pheeds out of context on harmful sites like hate or child porn sites. I believe "fair use" covers me there, so I don't need to draw up any specifics.

And yes, I want it automated. I don't want them to have to contact me, or search my site. I want it as easy for them to use my content as possible, and not add hurdles.

Unlike some, I believe it is a privilege and a benefit to have an RSS picked up by other webmasters.

And this is the ORIGINAL purpose of RSS...To automate the syndication of content from one website to another.

It is you that wants to change the original intention and purpose of RSS. You want to take something that is in the public and pervert it to fit your own particular situation, and expect everyone else to conform to your own specific whims and wishes, instead of using it for what it was created to specifically do, which is allow for syndication of content from one site to another.

And I'd say some Warriors here agree with me, every one that bought an RSS pheed submitter, for example. The main benefit of submitting to RSS directories is so other sites pick up your pheeds. If you think people use the ping sites to look for pheeds to enter into the RSS readers, you're probably not going to get the benefit of pinging you were looking for.

No one is stopping you from developing your own XML and hiring a programmer to develop a reader for your XML so you can syndicate your content to only those you wish.

You never even bothered to click on your own RSS URL (through Feedburner) to see what it says? Yet you expect others to do the same, looking for specific policies?

If you don't know your own policies, I suggest it is unreasonable to expect others to know them. However, IMO, the posting of an RSS button does indeed state a specific policy, unless there's an obvious disclaimer.

But glad you got that cleared up.