ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: lucia on August 14, 2012, 11:44:31 AM
-
With some trepidation, I am going to risk the wrath of all those who have received copyright letters from Getty to ask advice on how to copyright my blog in anticipation of sending a DMCA notice that potentially has some teeth in it. Specifically: If I send a DMCA notice I want to have registration and evidence in place to demonstrate that a violation or violations did occur and to do so in a way that could potentially make filing a suit something other than a costly futile exercise on my part.
As some read on
http://www.extortionletterinfo.com/forum/legal-controversies-forum/google-to-start-devaluing-sites-that-receive-a-large-number-of-valid-copyright-i/30/
I believe my blog content is being copied. I did not authorize this copying. blah. blah. But now, I'm contemplating what sort of files etc. I should collect, and what sort of actions I might take in the event that I file a DMCA and the person copying files a counter-notification forcing me to sue if I want my stuff taken down. (I don't think it will come to that-- but I don't see much good in filing a DMCA if I'm not prepared to deal with a counter-notification.)
Now for the questions:
1. Are my blog posts 'published' as far as copyright law is concerned? I ask because registering 30 posts would be cheaper if they are all considered "unpublished". Obviously, under the circumstances, I do want to keep my sunk costs low. But there would be no point in registering as "a collection" if a hypothetical case benefits greatly from having things registered 'individually'.
(I read an online circular describing registering for online content. It discussed different requirements for "published" vs. "unpublished" works. Reading it I can't figure out if my blog posts are "published" or "unpublished". (The requirement seemed to suggest that merely "displaying" doens't make it published. Publication happens if I sell it, lease it or offer it for sale or lease.) I know I've displayed. Last week I added a script to include "google ads" in the sidebar. I think the script would be the closest thing to offering for sale or lease. (I'm going to take that out as there are no clicks anyway. )
2. What sort of information should I log and collect? I plan to collect the following each day:
* serverlogs to show the bot visited.
* screenshots of the page as it displays at the business entity.
* screenshost of my page.
* html of my page downloaded each day.
Is there other stuff I should try to collect?
Does any one else have advice on what steps would be prudent "just in case"?
-
Is the content being "copied" in an IFrame? If so I don't think it would be any different than googles image search, they are not being copied, but pulled directly from the source.Which would lead back to the perfect10 case. I can't speak for the registration itself, but it seems you will collecting all the good stuff, screen shots are sure handy to have
-
Is the content being "copied" in an IFrame?
It appears a bot visits the top page of my blog http://rankexploits.com/musings copies the html, hosts it on a server-that-is-not mine. They then frame this copy and display it to people visiting their site.
I injected javascript which displays when either top.location or self.location do not match "rankexploits.com"
http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/
The framed page appears to be this address: Note: not mine.
http://newsblur.com/reader/page/1100897
I'm going to post so you have a chance to look. ( I tweeted, and if the person who is copying is wise, he'll either a) take down the copy or b) explain that it's not a copy.
-
The site also appears to function as follows:
1) at the lower part of the outerframe, you can see "orginal", "feed" and "story" views. The "original" which as far as I can tell always displays by default frames what appears to be a copy of my content. That copy is hosted at "it's not my server" site.
2) The feed... I don't know. I think it's probably a copy. But that's ok. It's pretty conventional for feed readers to store feeds. (That said, many require users to log in to view. They don't just hang out another copy of the feed. ) Anyway, it might be a copy or a frame. If it's a copy, I think the Oscar could debate whether copying is a violation in his copyright class. But I wouldn't care. So, wouldn't matter.
3) The story view: These appear to be material hosted on my server in an iframe. Because it is, I busted that by merely sending <?php
header(‘X-Frame-Options: DENY’);
?>. This is easy to "bust" because they are framing material that is hosted on my server-- and as you observe, that's not a copyright violation.
The problem is #1. I don't like that.
Mind you: I would like them to pay me money to do #3. But framing stuff on my server causing a browser to visit my server and fetch it is not copying. So... that's not what's got me hot and bothered.
-
He's stopped now. :)
-
Excellent! ;D
He's stopped now. :)
-
Copying has resumed. Sigh...
-
Lucia, wouldn't it be easier (and perhaps smarter) and certainly less time-consuming to simply monetize in some way each blog post you make instead of getting into what could become a pissing contest with a fellow programmer, where you both end up spending all kinds of time trying to outwit the other?
In just about every blog post I put up, I have a link to something that helps me pay the bills around here as well as a link to an article or another blog post on one of my other sites. For me, much of my time is spent writing to generate traffic and name recognition.
You're a lot smarter than I am, so I only throw this out as a suggestion to maybe help you save some time and energy trying to defeat a trend of taking other peoples' work without permission, a trend that I don't see disappearing... and in a way, that's good, because that's kind of the idea the Internet was founded on anyway... free information for everyone.
I think one of the key principles for earning a living on the internet is to never spend a minute worrying about copyright and stealing but instead to figure out how to embed my work with clever stuff so that innocent and well as intentional infringers and downright thieves end up helping me expand my brand, so to speak.
-
Lucia, wouldn't it be easier (and perhaps smarter) and certainly less time-consuming to simply monetize in some way each blog post you make instead of getting into what could become a pissing contest with a fellow programmer, where you both end up spending all kinds of time trying to outwit the other?
1) I don't see this as a pissing contest with a fellow programmer. For one thing I am not a programmer. By training I am a mechanical engineer who mostly blogs about climate change as a hobby. (I previously blogged about knitting and I would be just as p*ssed off about what he's doing if this were my kntting blog.)
2) Just because blogging is a hobby for me, I don't see any reason why that means I lose copyright protection so that someone <i>else</i> can repackage and monetize my content without sharing any of the money with me.
3) tell me how to easily monetize blog posts on climate change without alienating the audience I cherish so the so the money ends up in my pocket.
4) Suppose I could monetize: If so, this copying would possibly reduce my earnings.
5) Suppose you can't think of any good way for me to monetize while retaining the audience I cherish. Does that give someone else the right to "sell" his wrapper when it is only valuable because it is wrapped around my (an other hobby bloggers ) contents?
In just about every blog post I put up, I have a link to something that helps me pay the bills around here as well as a link to an article or another blog post on one of my other sites. For me, much of my time is spent writing to generate traffic and name recognition.
That's what you do. So? What does that have to do with me? My site is mostly a hobby blog. My time is spent writing about thing that I am curious about. And it happens I attract quite a bit of traffic. (That is: when I write about climate change as opposed to other stuff. The posts with the equations generate tons of traffic. Can't use them to sell much of anything-- but so?)
As for name recognition, I don't want to get into a pissing contest. Maybe you have better name recognition than I do. Or not. Maybe you value name recognition. I don't see that as remotely relevant here.
You're a lot smarter than I am, so I only throw this out as a suggestion to maybe help you save some time and energy trying to defeat a trend of taking other peoples' work without permission, a trend that I don't see disappearing... and in a way, that's good, because that's kind of the idea the Internet was founded on anyway... free information for everyone.
First: Was the internet founded to create free information for everyone? Says who? I've got tons of "sockulators" and other free stuff out there. I'm happy to pay hosting costs to let knitters use those for free. I don't see how then fact that lots of people post lost of things for free obligates me to permit others to make money by bundling up my stuff without sharing some of the money with me.
I happen to think that this notion that everything is free on the internet is a double edged sword. The fact that it is difficult for people who put out good valuable information have their stuff taken without any thought to remuneration is not "good". I don't know if my stuff is any "better" than yours-- but I get quite a bit of traffic. No matter what I've blogged about, I've gotten traffic. (Knitting got me the most-- but I became more interested in climate change.)
But it's traffic that is difficult to monetize because it has nothing to do with saleable products. That's ok with me. BUT that doesn't mean I want someone else to create a saleable product by finding all the interesting people who don't make money, putting a bow on it and selling it.
I think one of the key principles for earning a living on the internet is to never spend a minute worrying about copyright and stealing but instead to figure out how to embed my work with clever stuff so that innocent and well as intentional infringers and downright thieves end up helping me expand my brand, so to speak.
Oh? Is that some sort of key principle?
Anyway, I don't blog to "earn a living on the internet". I may blog for different reasons than you do. That's permitted.
Anyone can visit my site for free-- and if you visit the front page you'll see ZERO ads. You'll see ZERO links to marketable things. It's my right to do this. The fact that I chose to not have ads or sell much of anything on my blog doesn't give this guy a right to bundle my content up in his "product" and then sell his product to people who pay "premium" packages of "feed reading". The fact is: What he is selling is NOT a feed. It's not going to bring me any eyeballs. It's not going to bring me anything I value.
I have no objection to his product provided his product isn't basically a "subscription" to read his copy of my stuff. If he wants to sell other people's stuff- not my business. But I should think if his sois dissant 'feed reader' is all that great, he doesn't need to send a bot to copy my front page (not feed!) on a daily basis to sell the reader.
Look: I recognize fair use. I use it. I recognize the value of created by people giving things away for free. I recognize that some people blog about subjects that can be monetized to make money. But none of these things mean that if I chose to blog about a subject that attracts lots of eyeballs but is somewhat difficult to monetize, then someone else should just be able to grant themselves permission to copy because they think they know how to monetize (provided they pay me nothing.)
I'm watching to see if this guy maybe figured out he failed to stop copying. If he failed, I'm going to check a few details that mattered in a google case. Then, if he hasn't stopped, I'm going to send a DMCA. As for suing or asking for money: I would only do that as a last resort. But I might do it.
But really, this guys' business model is sufficiently tenuous that I think Oscar might be interested in aspects to discuss as hypotheticals in his copyright course! (Heck. I don't even thing some things are tenuous. The main questions: What can a copyright right owner do that is not basically putting themselves at risk of spending lots of their own money to pursue a "principle".)
-
BTW: I don't want to suggest that I can dictate what Oscar should be interested in. He is interested in what he is interested in for his own reasons. But I will admit as a small hobby blogger to being very upset that someone with funding is copying my stuff in an rather non-industry standard way that I oppose. And even though I believe he should not copy my stuff in the way he is doing and I very, very strongly suspect it violates copyright, pursuing it would be inordinately expensive.
I should add that it doesn't help my mental state to know this guy got an idea into his head, coded, and the "brilliant" idea seems to have been welcomed by the coding community. He's gotten subscribers and now has a small business. He recently quite his job to develop the business. I do not welcome the notion that to protect my interest I would need to pursue a case that represent a serious reversal to his business.
But really-- I don't see how it is the case that if other people spend time thinking about use the web in a way that efficiently monetizes their time that means that I am forced to lose all control of whether my stuff is copied and displayed.
Ok.. sorry. I'm upset. ....
-
I don't think you need to apologize and I do think you have every right to be upset. All of your points are valid and legitimate.
-
Greg--
By the way, the existence and display of copies of blogs at that site happens to represent a gold mine for copyright trolls with very modest programming skillzzzzz. On the getty thread, I posted what a copyright troll should do... today... at that site.
-
My post was not meant to be mean-spirited or upsetting, and I'm very sorry that it upset you the way it did, Lucia. My apologies.
-
Mulligan--
I"m just upset generally.
Unfortunately, the copyright issue can be especially frustrating if you have a blog for creative expression which is not run for profit and also want to control your content. From the point of view of a content creator there are all sorts of things that are bad about the way newsblur presents the content. Only one of the bad things involve copying.
-
Does everyone remember you are on the ELI Forums? Doesn't anyone remember how I operate in principle? Doesn't anyone remember how and why ELI started to begin with? Does anyone remember why ELI is so effective? It's based on principles I have used many times before. I have discussed this over the years.
Stop trying to "outlegal" the guy. That is a waste of time and unethical people don't worry about the legal system. I been down that road before with the "Cobra Collection Agency Scam". Go look it up. The woman I dealt with never gave a shit about the legal front. So I came up with a plan to expose her publicly.
In your case, you use Google to your advantage and start giving the person and the website a lot of attention and call them what they are: PLAGIARISTS!
I've had a lot of people plagiarize me over the years because I am good at what I write. An example is a domain I sold a couple years back: Prohomebuyers.com. For the sale of a domain, he took the logo I had design and all the text I wrote without permission. I already told the guy to change the text. He gave me lip-service he would but never did.
He is so lazy that he even uses the credibility statements I wrote! It actually applies to very few people. I feel sorry for whoever deals with this liar who "adopted" my and my partners professional background.
http://prohomebuyers.com/ourcredibility.php
I have the original text still on my computer and he completely uses them as he wrote them. I find it hard to believe he does everything exactly as we do them. I don't go public on him simply because I could care less now and he is in a totally different market and I am no longer "buying" investment property. I have more than enough.
It would have been a waste of time trying to discuss copyrights and the like. I don't need a lawyer to tell me if someone is plagiarizing me. If I really wanted to go after this guy, it would very easy to embarass the crap out of this guy and make the domain worthless. After all, I started and built up all the traffic and reputation. I can certainly bring it down to its knees.
This guy is a plagiarist, plain and simple. He hides behind a domain name as so many people do.
Lucia, Use big, bold letters and keep repeating your story often in various places. Make sure everyone of your reader knows this person and website are PLAGIARISTS with no original thought or content. Make sure you fully identify yourself as the other person tries to hide out.
-
Matthew is right, and I would do it in your blog too, so when they take it they are nailing themselves to the wall! ;D
-
This is a great discussion thread.
It truly underlines that how "copyright" isn't necessarily about money.
Especially when our work is dear to us.
Copying other's work (especially for profit), and then ignoring the pleas of the people that produced the work will come to no good in the end.
I'm sure that there must be many others that feel the way Lucia does.
Lucia, have you contacted anyone else whose material has been copied?
Perhaps, a group of people working together could be part of the answer?
S.G.
-
Soylent--
I haven't contacted anyone else. It would be too difficult to click through, locate addresses and so on. I have posted at http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12056889/framebuster-with-exceptions . That is mostly a question about the coding of how to stop this-- because even if I get the current person to stop (and I will) that can't prevent someone else from doing a similar thing in the future. And I've blogged about the issue but blog isn't a blawg nor a blog about IT. So the audience isn't necessarily fascinated by this issue.
Oddly, posting the question at stackoverflow could possibly result in questions that cause a number if IT people to be more aware of what is happening. So, in addition to learning how to bust the frame, I might learn a range of opinions about the practice of "frame-busting-busting".
The fact is: Because the monetary value of what is being copied is low, and will be extremely low if businesses who might copy material in this way can sell subscriptions to readers to read it in another format. The analogy is this:
Suppose 800,000 5th graders write haikus that kids posted on their school web sites. None think their individual haikus are sufficiently valuable to register a copyright for the haiku. A book publisher thinks that collectively the haikus could be marketable and creates a collection of 800,000 haikus without contacting any of the 5th graders. Will any of the 5th graders (or their parents) want to get embroiled in a copyright suit? First: some might like their kids poem in the book. Some might dislike it intensely. Of the latter, most will not want to hire an attorney and so on.
You can start to tweak the example to have the book contain 790,000 haikus by 5th graders, one poem by a prominent individual, and 1,000 with popularity between that of your garden variety 5th graders haiku and the prominent individual. Which of these people will mind? Does the fact that the 790,000 don't mind affect the rights of the prominent individual? How about the 1,000? And of the 1,000, what threshold do they have to reach to make it worthwhile to copy?
I suspect very few content owners would think it was worth while to worry about this sort of thing when it is just taking off. Almost no one is going to want to sue-- even if they are bothered by the practice. It's not a matter many are going to wish to devote their lives too. (Moreover, in many cases the entity copying may well be judgement proof and will remain so unless their idea takes off and turns out to be something that results in large monetary gains.)
FWIW: On the "would someone win a copyright case", I've been reading various things including this:
http://www.linksandlaw.com/decisions-148-google-cache.htm
We've all read this: It's the story of the copyright troll who wanted to sue google for copying his short stories. He lost.
In some ways, newsblur's caching shares a similarity with googles. They copy the full html of a page.
and noting the important differences between newsblur caching and google caching. To my mind, there are many many differences between the two cases. (Example: Google's bot visits robots.txt. Google won't cache if you include 'noarchive'. Google searches return link to cache in a way that requires user to click several times-- so it's not set up as a substitute. Blah. Blah. Blah... Of course, it is also the case that I did not post my material with the intention of luring newsblur to my site knowing they would copy and so on. I didn't even know they existed until recently! )
Matt--
This isn't plagiarism because person creating the "feed reader" makes no claim he wrote the stuff. He claims to have a new innovation in "feed reader". As far as I can tell, the main innovations of the 'feed reader' consists of treating 'not-feed' content as feed, copying that non-feed material and display it and framing other content (possibly using a framebuster to make it difficult for someone to bust out of the frame.) Neither practice is plagiarism.
Mind you: I object to both practices. I think 'feed readers' should read feeds. With respect to any copying, I think they should limit themselves to content in the feeds. (This is not a statement of law. It's just that I think a "feed reader" should read feeds. )
I have other issues too. I think 3rd party feedreader displays should require some access control. That is: if you use google's feedburner, you have to enter a password before reading the feed. This is not the case here: http://newsblur.com/reader/page/1100897 which you can access by merely clicking.
But what the google precedent does mean is that a law suit could end up sucking ones life up. One would need to find lawyers to explain precisely why the google copying and the newsblur copying are different. (I suspect if one were willing to take this to higher courts, they would ultimately see it's different. But.... is it worth the risk? For what? Besides, as I said, I suspect that for now, the start up venture run by a guy who quit his job and appears to have a small bit of funding form an incubator is effectively "judgement proof". A judge might aware you attorney's feeds, but you can't get money out of a stone. )
It's unlikely very many people are going to wish to get involved in the time and energy sink. It's unlikely any contingency attorney is going to take the case. And so on.
FWIW: I am certain that in the end I will get the specific entity now displaying copies to copying to comply.
But because I am now aware that someone has coded this, I want to have my pages written in a way that interferes with it's operation. I do think many people who would not want to be involved in a legal battle would be happy to learn of a "framebuster-buster-buster" and code it. It's merely a matter of entering the code.
After that, I would leave it to legal eagles like Oscar or others to identify what laws are violated if a business copies and/or frames material and uses a "framebuster-buster-buster-buster-buster-buster" to ensure the material displays in a way the copyright owner does not wish it to display.
-
BTW: Side by side images:
<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/SideBySide.jpg"><img src="http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/SideBySide-500x223.jpg" alt="" title="SideBySide" width="500" height="223" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-20508" /></a>
-
I think it's safe to say that legal remedies aren't going to be enough. Regardless of the underlying technology or method, if you feel you are being infringed upon through some trickery, then your best bet is to flip it around and let everyone know what is happening and that you are the source and originator of this great information.
If people liked the "feeder" information, I would then give people reasons to directly visit you as the source. Who doesn't want to go back to the source? Who wants to accept a blind feed of unverified info when you can get it to the source.
You have to get into the minds of your audience. Although I don't like being plagiarized or don't like being in a "feeder", I would flip the situation around. In fact, why not use their "feeder" for advertising your work and products/services you might have.
You could embed the words in your article "visit source xyz dot com if you reading this from a feeder" or maybe incorporate and image or diagram with your posts that has your URL in there. It would be difficult to get a feeder to replicate all the anti-copying methods. Use the feeder and copying to your advantage by getting MORE traffic and recognition.
Too many people waste time on the legal front when it can be flipped around to their advantage using existing web technology.
-
In fact, why not use their "feeder" for advertising your work and products/services you might have.
First: I think you are making the mistake of believing this blog has a business purpose. It has absolutely no business purpose. None. There is no "your work and products/services" associated with my blog. None. It's my hobby blog. Period.
Lots and lots and lots of blogs have no business purpose.
So, the only thing I could possibly "want" from a feed reader is to get more people to visit my blog and/or participate in conversation. Ordinary feed readers are devised in a way that this automatically happens. Sort of.
What happens is:
1) People who already like my blog, but prefer to access in alternate ways subscribe to the feed. This feed is available at http://rankexploits.com/musings/feed. I chose how much "stuff" to put in there. They can subscribe this various different ways. They can use an at home feed reader that pulls the feed onto their pc, they can use google feedburner, they can use bloglines etc. Those services will pull the feed for them-- and serve it in a more "flat" format. Some people prefer this method rather than visiting the blog. In fact mostly to make sure the feed is working, I subscribe to my own feed. Every morning the "feed" is in my feed reader (which for all practical purposes looks like the article in in my mailbox.)
I like this system. It's fine. Some of these people click the links and participate in comments. Some click to read the comments (in fact, one of the main reasons people would visit the site itself instead of reading the feed is to particpate in comments.). Some just read. It's fine. Moreover, it's widely accepted by bloggers etc. that feeds are meant to be pulled-- for personal use at least.
2) But with this "new" feed reader , instead of merely displaying my feed, the person has decided to treat everything at the blog as if it's intended to be shared like the feed. Lots of non-feed information is copied. So material that feed readers often visit my site to learn after reading the feed is now copied and available at their site. Among other things, the entire content of comments is available at their site (though framed). Moreover, because of the way things are organized at the site, someone could either intentionally or accidentally link to their copy of my blog rather than linking to my blog. This would dilute my blogs rank with google. Even though I have no business purpose, I do like my blog to be "findable".
So, in fact, one of the reasons I don't like this sois-dissant new "feed reader" is that while normal feed readers to give a "taste" of my content thereby attracting readers, this new "feed reader" basically sets up a separate location where people can read my stuff which for a variety of reasons I don't like. (Some of my readers really didn't like the idea-- and for reasons that had nothing to do with business purposes.)
So.... I like normal feed readers. These readers are limited to displaying feeds. I don't like this thing that copying and displaying stuff that is not the feed.
-
Oh-- I should add that the reason for posting at Stackexchange is that redirecting, breaking the frame and so an can be the way to turn the copying into traffic at my blog. Or at least preventing the framing and copying from sucking away traffic from my blog.
-
Unfortunately, without registering the content with the copyright office, legal remedies wouldn't be a practical option.
Damages would likely amount to just legal fees, which can only be sought for registered content.
Additionally, if this person is linking to the information, it may not qualify as an actual infringement.
I also think that we shouldn't assume that lawyers will normally take cases on pro-bono or even contingency.
I do know that content can be registered as an "updating database". I'm not well-read in this area, however.
A legal dispute in this regard may be breaking new ground.
Oftentimes, a threat of legal action is enough, but one risks becoming a "Timmy McCormack".
I very sympathetic to this issue though, don't get me wrong.
S.G.
-
If I were in Lucia's shoes, I would go about it differently, I'd go oatmeal on his ass!! If he's copying, framing or whatever my content, I would commit to making a daily post, not only linking back to my site, but in that post I'd be ripping into him, and letting it be known that he is infringing on my content and also infringing on everybody elses content.. I'm sure he would not want his "premium" subscribers to see that he is a blantant copyright infringer...he's most likely stopp pulling your content, after enough post are written throwing his lousy ass under the bus...but thats just me
-
I like Robert's idea...
...if others got on the bandwagan, it could really make a difference..!
S.G.
-
Something along the lines of
"If you're reading this information via newsblurb, please consider reading this from the original source and not from a source that openly infringes in others content for financial gain.. You can read all of this and more absolutely FREE at my blog. Not only does this site steal my content, it also steals my bandwidth, with it's nasty content scrapers... etc..you get the idea...shame him in his own house!
I like Robert's idea...
...if others got on the bandwagan, it could really make a difference..!
S.G.
-
Lucia,
You are taken my comments too literally. I understand blogs don't have to have a business or monetary purpose. However, clearly you are offended by the feeder. That means you are "missing" something. Perhaps, not receiving the recognition, accolades, traffic, or something.
People in the content production business need to get used to the idea that good content will be replicated whether they like it or not. Most people are inherently honest and appreciate original content from original authors.
The surefire way to not get your content replicated or used in any way shape or form is just not to produce any. Linda Ellis had the good fortune of a viral poem and yet she has managed to pollute and taint every person that thought well of her and her poem. Instead of converting all this goodwill into something larger, she wants to extort people.
People pay tens and hundreds of thousands to have viral content produced. She got it "for free" in the 1990's but she wants to poison the virality of it. How stupid is that? Because she is a small and scarcity-based thinker vs. an big and abundance-based thinker. She is also so insecure that the Dash Poem is her only valuable creation.
Content creators have to pick and choose your battles in all this. Some keep thinking that they can control everyone through laws or rules. If you want to keep finding some way to "stop" this feeder guy, that is your right but you will never find a lawyer or the right law to stop unethical activity entirely.
If I had a feeder guy keep pulling off my content without my authorization, I would spend my time capitalizing on that, not necessarily threaten litigation or throw some other law in their face. The reality is I don't have any problems with nearly anyone replicating my online content as long it is credited and attributed. And if it is NOT credited or attributed to me, then I would find a way to use the transport mechanism to my advantage.
Musicians and software guys are generally trying to get people to try out their content even if they have others distribute it. They aren't even terribly upset about it if it is pirated. Because they know it is another delivery mechanism.
It is almost always possible to turn a negative in to a positive if you are willing to reframe or recontextualize the situation.
-
might I suggest you contact our friend Jonathan over at Plagiurism today, maybe he would be interested in doing a little piece on this..
-
Matthew--
I think you are missing something here. It has to do with the business model of the person copying.
I"m aware content will be copied. I'm aware that it is impossible to prevent all copying. I'm aware I will never find a lawyer to stop all unethical copying. I'm aware I will never stop quite a bit of totally ethical copying. I'm fine with that.
This is what I have problems with: person A is copying my content and supplying it to person B in person A's venue with person A charging person B for access to the content. I have problems with party A monetizing my otherwise free content even if I am "credited and attributed" as the author.
In this case, partyA's business model consists entirely of copying content from lots of places he may deem "free" putting a bow on it and charging people for certain conveniences. As far as I can see, the main conveneniences could be provided without the copying or framing -- that is by simply using the feed as all feed readers do. (Oddly, these conveniences are provided in a "feed view". But the programmer also provides the "original" and "story" views, where the conveniences are replicated. ) But in addition he wants to provide the "benefit" of having the content display *exactly as it displays at the original site* (well, except inside an ugly frame. But never mind). This display constitues the "original" and "story" views.
I'm fine with the "Feed" view. That part really is a feed reader and I'm ok with that. (Though, I would prefer that was located behind a subscription wall-- as most feed readers operate.)
I other words, as far as I can tell, the purpose of the *copying* is pretty much to provide *a exact copy*. Not to provide the other added values of marking as read or "intelligent feed". Moreover, I think the reason he wants to provide the exact copy is that he think this flourish makes his "service" something people will pay him money for.
In my view, if party A is going to follow such a business model where he copies and sells access to copies of content, party A ought to be finding a way to pay the people whose content he is copying and selling. Failing that, party A ought, at a minimum to obey robots.txt and/or 'noarchive' so that people who forbid copying in the way he is copying can do so easily.
As for "reframe or recontextualize the situation", I'd like to. I see a potential for many small bloggers to eak out small streams of revenue of a business model of this sort existed and then licensed and paid the bloggers a small amount. ($5/year? An amount based on views? Whatever.) But there is no potential and can never be any potential for small bloggers (or content creators) to ever turn their hobby content into revenue if businesses like this can operate and pay bloggers nothing and don't even ask permission to copy.
So the only way to turn these lemons into lemonaded is to get someone who has this business model in mind to understand that he needs to get permission for the copying. Some people would only grant this permission if paid.
If, instead, his business is able to just send his stupid robot around, copy and sell access to copies of content... then why would he or anyone else with a similar idea in the future ever pay? It is basically saying that all content creators content really does belong to whomever wishes to copy it for any and all commercial projects they might dream up.
That is not right.
Musicians and software guys are generally trying to get people to try out their content even if they have others distribute it.
Sure. But that doesn't mean they want others to begin to distribute absolutely all their music for free. Nor do they want radio stations to play the music without paying licenses with radio stations telling the musicians the radio station is doing the musicians a favor by exposing people driving in cars to work to their music.
What you aren't getting is that this "new" feed reader is not a mechanisms for getting people to "try out content". It is a mechanisms to shift my pre-existing readers to viewing the my copies of my content at his site where they pay for a certain convenience.
-
We are talking in circles here. It doesn't matter the specifics monetizing or not. Take off your engineering hat, if you are being "wronged", do something besides looking for a legal remedy.
Whatever they are doing wrong, VOICE IT loudly and publicize and SEO the offending party! Use publicity and awareness to combat it. Shame and embarrass the offending party if you have to.
I know you like details, I cannot spell out every little thing you need to do. I am giving you a couple of effective strategies to combat it. Everything you are typing and explaining could be incorporated into your own websites or even "escalated" to complaint boards.
You have the opportunity here to list the specific website and party that is commiting these "wrong" but you don't name them. Name them so they start getting into the search engines. You should be naming them everywhere and tying them to your story.
What "should" be and "ought" to be is a futile argument. I deal with what can be done and what works. Maybe you want to go spearhead some legislative effort. If so, you are pretty much on your own.
-
We are talking in circles here. It doesn't matter the specifics monetizing or not. Take off your engineering hat, if you are being "wronged", do something besides looking for a legal remedy.
Well... putting on my engineering hat, I already have looked for something besides a legal remedy. I:
- Organized my pages so that when the 'copy' is loaded, visitors are shown a message and forwarded to my blog. You can see the message if you visit the link I've provided several times:
http://newsblur.com/reader/page/1100897
After it loads, wait 10 seconds and see what happens.
- Organized my .htaccess file so that visitors who load the 'story' version are shown only my post discussing newsblur.com's business practices. They are not shown the version newsblur tries to frame.
- blogged about this issue at my own blog. Twice.
- raised the discussion on stackexchange so that I can learn other more effective engineering responses. (I want to fine tune what I am doing with javascript and .htaccess so that I can deal with newsblur in a more fine grained way. There are some infelicities in my scripting so far.)
You have the opportunity here to list the specific website and party that is commiting these "wrong" but you don't name them. Name them so they start getting into the search engines. You should be naming them everywhere and tying them to your story.
I have named them. I've named them at my blog. I've named them here. It's newsblur.com. Not only here but at my blog. FWIW: If I google "newsblur frames" the first search result returned for me is here at eli. Google does track preferences so I don't know if the result will be the same for you. Click below and let me know.
https://www.google.com/search?q=newsblur+frames&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a
I have some reasons for not specifically naming at stackexchange. It has to do with their policies. They want questions asked generically especially if you are new. I am new. Their rules restrict my first questions. So, I am limiting that question to getting information to deal with the framing.
What "should" be and "ought" to be is a futile argument. I deal with what can be done and what works. Maybe you want to go spearhead some legislative effort. If so, you are pretty much on your own.
I agree. Moreover, because I want to know the full range of what can be done, I ask questions to learn how I can add to my range of responses rather than be limited by only doing the ones I already know how to do. I realize you might not be aware of all the things I've done. But don't jump to the conclusion that my not asking how to redirect traffic to my blog here means I haven't done that. What it means is I know how to do that and most people here don't. So.... I already did it!
OTOH, some people here are more familiar with DMCA and copyright suits. So, this is a good place to ask about what's required to buttress any legal response I might elect to pursue. My asking this question here doesn't mean it's my "only" response nor even my "main" one. It means it's the one I'm not sure how to best implement.
-
I definitely like the message I saw flash up. That was really great. Any way you can leave that message up longer? That was a lot to read.
I have to admit, that was quite creative and "devious". I approve! :-)
Keep the pressure up on NewsBlur. If you want payback, you will have to run a sustained Newsblur campaign. I know it can be a time suck but sometimes it is the only way to get them to pay attention and get satisfaction. You seem to have a good programming background. You might be able to devise a way to replicate content on this copying issue. Over time, you might get the negative results you want for these folks.
On your blog, I believe you should "celebritize" yourself, your name, and works. That gives your content even more "meat" and distinction.
In many ways your discussion of this situation is actually pretty cutting-edge. It isn't for the tame.
You may have started out your blog with climate discussions but you my have just opened up a whole new line of discussions on a new issue. My question is: are you willing to be a larger, more visible, and more outspoken advocate? It could be this entirely new subsection of your blog!
-
Matthew--
I set up a 2nd domain name to discuss more IT ish things. That's going to build slowly.
I've been working out a better way to implement the message/forward etc. response. I figured something out today, and tomorrow I can turn that into a plugin. That way others will be able to use it easily. (This plugin will be much easier than my attempt to secure a blog against bad crawlers and image bots. That's quite thorny. I almost hate to tell people.... But I am absolutely sure that image bots are attempting to crawl my site by appearing with a huge range of IPs and presenting 'no referrer' 'no user agent'.)
Anyway, back to the script to prevent my stuff from being copied and framed: There are advantages to writing the plugin, making it available and then explaining what it would be used for rather than to change the central topic of a climate blog to one about copyright. Generally speaking if people can prevent something they don't like by installing a plugin and clicking "activate" they will do it. And given the range of things people blog about, this plugin might be mentioned at a variety of "blog about blogging blogs" ones the plugin exists. The fact of it's existence --- if it works properly-- will inhibit the behavior it tends to thwart. And people won't need to worry about hiring lawyers and so on.
(But some will still want to know how to prepare for a suit in certain instances. So... answer to my question about what's best in that regard would still be useful to me. But more and more, now that I've figured out a way to deal with certain .. shall we call them "features" of Javascript, I'm definitely leaning toward 95% coding solutions. :) )
-
I am not a coder so it isn't part of my arsenal unless I hire someone. But since you are a coder and I got a taste of the concept, I definitely approve simply by virtue that it is something you can proactively implement without having to ask someone's opinion.
I say "rock on" and code your little heart out and teach this SOB a lesson and embarrass the crap out of them.
-
lucia,
I was thinking about you and your blog situation the other day and had not seen an update as to what was happening. Have you been able to stop the copying of your blog? I found this thread very interesting and would be curious to know its current status if you would share it with us. Thanks! :)
-
Yes. I have.
I figured out how to use javascript to break frames both in the direct copying and in the framed bit. Also.... I sort of got a dig in that I think was effective. Matt might have been proud of me-- but I don't want to discuss details. :)