We aggregate and share only the best sites that have already shared their RSS feeds. ( Really Simple Syndication (RSS) is a marketing tool used by bloggers and websites.)
So you if you’re savvy, you’d probably feel honored that as content curators we manually selected your website to highlight.
If you are a legal copyright holder who doesn’t want your RSS promoted by us, please contact us and we will happily remove you and never promote your brand again.
Email counsel @ programmer.net
RSS stands for “Really Simple Syndication” (definition of RSS). But many people don’t seem to understand what this actually means. While you probably have no trouble understanding “really simple”, the word syndication seems to be misunderstood. According to dictionary.com, it means:
“8. to publish simultaneously, or supply for simultaneous publication, in a number of newspapers or other periodicals in different places: Her column is syndicated in 120 papers.”
While there are other meanings, for the purposes of Web content, that’s the definition.
Many Web content developers use RSS feeds to syndicate their content. They put either excerpts or entire articles into the feed through their blog, and this content is then fed out to the internet via RSS. Just like in newspaper syndication, RSS provides a broader potential audience for the content than might have been found on their website alone. Most content authors who put their content into RSS feeds appreciate this fact, and enjoy seeing their content in RSS aggregators and feed readers. They know that their audience is larger because of the RSS.
Google Starts Reporting False DMCA Takedown Requests
Putting Together A Database Of Bogus DMCA Takedowns
from the interesting-move dept
Over the years, we’ve written many, many stories of completely bogus DMCA takedowns. It’s a pretty common occurrence. Sometimes it’s done accidentally by clueless bots (or clueless humans). Sometimes it’s done maliciously. We just had a case that appeared especially egregious, involving a site copying another sites’ articles, then claiming copyright over the originals in order to take down the original stories (which just happened to paint a professor in a very poor light for allegedly faking parts of some high profile research). That story inspired David Weekly (founder of PBWiki, HackerDojo, SuperHappyDevHouse and a few other things) to do something: he set up the site DMCAInjury.com, which is just a simple Google spreadsheet input form at this point, but hopefully can become something much more.David has pointed out that it would be handy to have some more cases in which the filers of bogus DMCA notices are actually punished for their actions under section 512(f) of the DMCA. As we discussed last year, it’s very difficult to win a 512(f) claim, in part because the language is so vague and so far courts have interpreted it pretty narrowly.
However, as David points out, there have been some successful cases, including the case that the EFF ran against Diebold nearly a decade ago. David was actually one of the plaintiffs in that case. If you don’t remember, someone had leaked some internal documents from Diebold (makers of e-voting machines) which showed the company was well aware of massive security problems with their machines. Diebold first tried to claim the documents were fake and then used the DMCA to claim they were covered by Diebold’s copyright and that it could issue takedowns on them. As you might have noticed, those two claims would contradict each other. Either way, a judge pointed out that:
“no reasonable copyright holder could have believed that portions of the e-mail archive discussing possible technical problems with Diebold’s voting machines were protected by copyright.”
The problem, of course, is that there just aren’t that many such cases (there are a few scattered ones, including the Lenz case we’ve been talking about recently). So finding such cases, and actually having them go to court could be useful — though I still think strengthening the ability to punish bogus DMCA notices would be helpful (well, and changing the entire DMCA takedown process, but that’s another post for another day). Via email, David admits that this is just a “trial balloon” to see if it turns up any interesting cases of bogus takedowns that might make for good 512(f) cases. And that would be good, though the weaknesses of 512(f) still make it pretty difficult to find ideal cases, even as we see DMCA abuses all the time.
“Fair use is a doctrine in United States copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders, such as use for scholarship or review. It provides for the legal, non-licensed citation or incorporation of copyrighted material in another author’s work under a four-factor balancing test. It is based on free speech rights provided by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. [Wikipedia: Fair Use]