Republishing content via RSS feeds: right or wrong? (Part 2)

After posting Part 1 on this topic, I’ve been doing more research about the “Is it right to ’steal’ content via RSS feed” debate. At one end of the spectrum, some feel that since the purpose of RSS feeds is to share content, then it’s perfect fine to republish someone’s content in its entirety on another public site without permission or even credit. At the other end of the spectrum, others feel that even a feed reader like Bloglines is a blatant violation of copyright.

From what I can tell, it’s clear that copyright law has not caught up with technology, and that the implied license associated with RSS feeds is still being hotly debated. There also seems to be much confusion about RSS and its purpose. I’m hoping this article helps clarify some of the issues plus offer advice for those concerned about content theft.

History of copyright law

The 1976 Copyright revision was the first major change in copyright law in many years, since 1909; before that, copyright law was created primarily for print media…there were no tape recorders, photocopy machines or tv broadcasts when the 1909 law was in place.

In 1976, there was another major revision of copyright law…but again, it lagged behind technology and didn’t address digital issues. VCRs weren’t in common use, for example. Over the years, more revisions were made to copyright law, including DMCA: The Digital Millennium Copyright Act and DRM: Digital Rights Management.

It looks like it may be time for another revision to help clarify some of the issues being raised surrounding RSS feeds and their use.

History of RSS

The first version of RSS was used by Netscape in 1999 for use on their “My Netscape” portal. RSS went through various changes, with Dave Winer releasing a version 2002, emphasizing the meaning of the acronym (”Really Simple Syndication”, though some interpret the acronym as “Rich Site Summary”); his version apparently remains the most commonly used. RSS has also come to be known by some as “Really Simple Stealing,” a phrase generally attributed to Jason Calacanis.

You can find a good explanation of RSS at the RSS Specifications site:

“RSS is an acronym for Really Simple Syndication and Rich Site Summary. RSS is an XML-based format for content distribution. Webmasters create an RSS file containing headlines and descriptions of specific information. While the majority of RSS feeds currently contain news headlines or breaking information the long term uses of RSS are broad.

RSS is a defined standard based on XML with the specific purpose of delivering updates to web-based content. Using this standard, webmasters provide headlines and fresh content in a succinct manner. Meanwhile, consumers use RSS readers and news aggregators to collect and monitor their favorite feeds in one centralized program or location. Content viewed in the RSS reader or news aggregator is place known as an RSS feed.”

RSS the Good

Most bloggers have no problem with personal feed aggregators like Bloglines. For those confused by the terminology, an aggregator (according to Wikipedia) is “a client software that uses web feed to retrieve syndicated web content such as blogs, podcasts, vlogs, and mainstream mass media websites, or in the case of a search aggregator, a customized set of search results.” Sometimes this software is also known as a news aggregator or feed reader.

One of the biggest benefits of using an aggregator is the time and effort saved for the user. Instead of visiting each of my favourite news sites or blogs, I can subscribe to various feeds and have the aggregator automatically check for updates instead.

RSS feeds also help a blogger’s content reach a much wider audience than otherwise would be possible.

RSS the Bad

Reaching a big audience may be adequate compensation for some, but not others. I tend to agree with latoya, who posted in my comments board in response to someone who said she would be happy if the NY Times published her blog in full because of her feed:

Being a professional writer isn’t just about being read by as many people as possible. It’s about being acknowledged and compensated for your work. I can choose to take only one or the other, but that’s MY choice to make, not some RSS feed.

In my opinion, some aggregators cross the line. Whether or not it’s legal yet or not, there is the issue of intent. There is a marked difference between a public page that is created solely for the purpose of keeping users informed when certain sites are updated, and a commercial site that uses other people’s content without permission to make a profit.

From Mike Rundle at BusinessLogs.com:

“I think there’s a big difference between making a site’s RSS feed available for personal usage (aka, feed reading) and a company republishing it in an effort to draw more readers to its site. Top Ten Sources effectively has no original content and uses other people’s content to draw in readers. That, in my mind, is the crossing the line from personal use to copyright infringement.”

There is also a risk of one aggregator site using the feed of another aggregator site, so even if one site does get permission from a blog author, there’s no guarantee that the others will as well.

From what I can tell from my research online, most seem to agree that by making use of a feed, a blogger grants an implied license to the content. The question currently hotly debated, however, is: What exactly ARE the license terms? What rights is a blogger giving away by using an RSS feed?

In my opinion, it’s unethical for a site to purposely republish someone else’s blog content in its entirety without permission, without an obvious link back to the source, and to be making a profit from that content. I also don’t buy that having a feed means I’m giving away all rights to my content. [Example update: If someone happened to have a feed to a blog where they posted their entire novel, would it be all right for me to print out that novel without permission and sell it, keeping all the profits?]

From RSS Specifications:

“Offering a feed for syndication does not in fact grant any legal rights to anyone to reuse the feeds content beyond what the Copyright laws grant as Fair Use.”

RSS Feeds: what are the license terms?

Unfortunately this is still a gray area, and some are taking full advantage of the fact that the legalities have not yet been worked out.

From Rok Hrastnik of MarketingStudies.net:

“Certainly one of the problems is that right now there are no established best practices to govern the republishing of RSS syndicated content. It’s about time to make them.”

From Allan Burns of Newsniche.com:

“I have written many times on this subject. I think because RSS feeds are posted in directories and online readers the content tends to be thought of as public domain. Therefore I think there needs to be an education of webmasters about this subject.”

Possible solutions

From Eric Goldman:

“I’m pretty sure we’re going to see some big/high-stakes battles over the scope of any implied licenses in RSS feeds, and I honestly can’t predict where the lines will be drawn. In the interim, I suggest to bloggers who care that they put some restrictions near their ’syndicate’ link, add some restrictions to the RSS feed, register their copyrights and use the DMCA notice-and-takedown procedures when appropriate.”

For those with aggregator sites, RSS-Specifications.com has a list of useful guidelines which include the following:

“Do not violate copyrights by republishing an RSS feeds contents. If you quote content from another RSS feed, credit the source and provide and link to the original source of the content. As a rule of thumb, editorial content should exceed the length of the quoted material in the post.”

From John Hewitt of Writer’s Resource Center:

“I’ve encountered similar problems with my site. there are for-profit sites that republish my job postings. The easy solution is to change your feed to a Headlines-only feed, requiring readers of the feeds to click on the link to read the actual article. It isn’t a great solution, which is why I chose to just not to worry about the other sites (after all, most of my jobs are links to other sites to begin with.)”

Dan of TheWrongAdvices.com offers advice on how to protect yourself from “scraper sites“:

1. Use internal linking.

2. If you’re on Wordpress, use the Feed Copywriter plugin to add a copyright message and return link to the bottom of your feed.

3. Use Copyscape to check whether anyone is using your content.

Plagiarism Today posted advice on how to use cloaking to stop scraping.

Darren Rowes from Problogger.net suggests in Protecting RSS Feeds From Theft that tech-savvy bloggers modify their wp-rss2.php file so it includes a visible copyright notice in every post in the feed:

© 2005 YOUR-BLOG-URL.com This RSS Feed is for personal non-commercial use only. If you’re not reading this material in your news aggregator, the site you’re looking at is guilty of copyright infringement. Please contact YOUR-CONTACT-DETAILS so we can take legal action immediately.

Additional tips from RSS content theft and how to prevent it: Set up your server to refuse to serve the scrapers’ content. As a last resort, contact the site’s advertisers and explain the situation to them.

However, be warned that despite the above precautions, your content may be scooped through your feed anyway. If you want to make sure it isn’t, use only a partial feed, or don’t use RSS at all. From Sharon Housley at RSS-Specifications.com:

“I would advise that publishers using RSS to assume that the contents of their RSS feeds will be syndicated and replicated.”

If you’re currently making money from your content through ads, you might consider inserting text ads into your feed.

In my situation, the benefits of having a feed available currently outweighs the risks. I plan to install Feed Copywriter as well as use some internal linking, and will use Copyscape to see who is using my content and how they’re using it.

I’d be interested in hearing from other bloggers: do you currently use a full feed? Are you worried or not worried about your content being republished by someone else? What’s your opinion on the whole debate?

References:

[Update: I'll be adding to this list of resources as I find them. If you know of something that should be added to this list, please post it in the comments section, thanks.]

Blog Content Aggregation, RSS Feeds and Copyright Law by Eric Goldman.

History of RSS: from the RSS Specifications site.

The Use And Misuse of RSS from BusinessLogs.com.

Call to RSS Publishers: Best Practices for Republishing Syndicated Content

Full Vs Partial RSS Feeds from TheWrongAdvices.com

Cloaking To Stop Scraping from PlagiarismToday.com.

Wikipedia entry on Web syndication

Wikipedia entry on Scraper sites

“Stealing” content through RSS — the great debate (updated) from Guardian Unlimited (Jan.19, 2006)

Overview of Copyright Law from Copyright.com.

The History of the Photocopier from Gizmohighway.com

The History of Copyright Law from Lawrence Technological University.

The Legality of Republishing RSS Feeds from the Professional PHP blog, by Jeff Moore.

The Copyright Debate & RSS from RSS-Specifications.com.

What do you do when someone steals your content by Lorelle VanFossen.

RSS 2.0 at Harvard Law

On RSS and the coming wave of content theft by Marco van Hylckama Vlieg.

RSS content theft and how to prevent it by Lorelle VanFossen.

The growing trends in content theft: image theft, feed scraping and Website hijacking

Protecting RSS Feeds From Theft by Darren Rowes.