Having an RSS feed is not permission to copy content to your blog without attribution. Period.
Which is why this email is all kinds of wrong
Good morning Allison,
I am writing to you on behalf of the owner of the domain [redacted]. I do not own the domain however I share the server where this domain is hosted.
I have asked the owner to remove the url’s listed in your email. These url’s now 404.
I would like to point out however a few items that you should consider in the future:
a. Your RSS feeds located at: http://feeds2.feedburner.com/sphynxcatblog/OOLE make this content available. The purpose of RSS feeds is to syndicate your content so that others may use it and you derive the backlinks and credit as the source on the information. This is important on a number of levels and you may want to reconsider your thinking.
b. Because you provide your RSS feeds. You have zero legal standing. You cannot say ” here, use my content “ and then sue someone for using it. The owner has taken these url’s down because quite frankly he no longer wishes to send you traffic. If you do not want people using this content you need to disable your RSS feeds.
c. The owner of [redacted] was linking to you from his sidebar as well as from his trusted Sphynx Owners links areas. These have been pulled meaning you will no longer have the valuable backlinks from a PR4 site nor the traffic.
I would suspect that based on your actions here that you are either new to online endeavors and or ignorant with respect to these issues. I have no dog in this fight, as this is not my domain but I do desire that people succeed in their online businesses. Your position(s) in these matters will only harm your site and prevent growth.
Syndication is a good thing, collaborative exchanges of traffic and information are positive. Threats based on misinformed positions will alienate you from traffic sources and business opportunities.
Warm Regards,
Chris Potoski Content Thief| Owner [<-- link added by me]
WhyZoom Media, LLC
whyzoom .com
P: 919-749-0624
I am a hearty believer in sharing information on the internet. I link to stuff all the time. I also ensure I include attribution to any content I use (as required by copyright law in most countries) and if I want to reprint in full I will request permission.
Do not be fooled into thinking if you retain links and have a link to a site somewhere in your site to the site you are pulling from, that copyright laws are covered. You must request permission to reprint work in full (or more than a snippet) before doing so.
Contact the copyright owner for permission first.They may say no, and that is their right. They may say yes as long as attribution is applied. I would have been quite happy to come to an agreement with the blog had permission been sought.
I work hard on ensuring my content is unique and of quality, and in about 40 blogs I PAY for that content to be created and check my staff to ensure they are not fudging by ripping off someone else.
So why was I threatening action over this site apart from the fact they didn’t ask?
- There was no attribution of the full and direct copy from my RSS feed anywhere on the site (in effect claiming the content to be their own)
- The blog had no way of contacting the owner so I could not enter communication
- The host, who appears to be the guy above, did not acknowledge 3 emails, including a DMCA (sworn statement the information was mine)
Oh and why do people think just because I run a cat blog I have no idea about how things work on the internets?
……sound of screeching brakes…………….
Seems I have attracted another dingbat.
I did have the email author’s name redacted from the email above until he replied in a rather unbusiness-like manner.
Links to sites that explain copyright laws and intellectual property use for people like Chris who apparently have no clue -
Nicely worded explanation of website Copyright
Internet lawyer‘s take on copyright infringement
Wikipedia’s page on the DMCA Act
Google’s DMCA process , same as most USA sites
Planned and executed my exit from the corporate world. Walked away with a 6 figure payment to boot.
I’d say it is your right. I don’t care what they say, it’s your feed and you could use it however you want it to be used, and that goes for other people.
Yeah that sucks. My site is very heavily linked to on a daily basis. But I keep a very close watch on which sites are linking back to me and which aren’t. Google email alerts is a good tool to use. website name, your name, certain keywords you use all the time, etc.
Allison, I’ve also had people ripping off content from more than one of my several blogs.
I’ve been a full-time writer since 1994, so I have a fairly good understanding of copyright. It amazes me that people think it’s OK to just steal other people’s writing, even if they do give attribution.
I also have a situation in which a major website with Page Rank of 6 has published one of my ezinearticles.com articles, but put “nofollow” tags on the links to my site so I don’t get any Google juice from it. I’ve written twice, but they haven’t responded.
.-= John Soares´s last blog ..Social Media Use Growing in the United States =-.
Thanks John for dropping in
Alas it is a common problem. I get angry when people like Chris Potoski try to assert their illegal activity is fine, when they know better.
I hope my post has helped out people who don’t know much about their rights when it comes to their work
You’d think the sender would actually check up on the law first – it’s easy enough to find all over the net.
It reminds me that I have a big beef with users of (and makers of) a site-creating & content-scraping vile thing that I came across while at #30dchome. The user I met thought I should be pleased that he might be using my *unattributed* content because it would mean that my content would be being read by more people. And he’d come across as intelligent up till that point…
.-= Isha´s last blog ..Market Samurai Dojo Videos – One Straight After The Other: Keyword Research =-.
Eric Goldman, who teaches Cyberlaw and Intellectual Property at Santa Clara University School of Law and serves on the editorial boards of Business Law Today and the Journal of the Copyright Society of the U.S.A., confirms that it’s a tricky question.
“In my mind, there’s no question that a blogger grants an implied license to the content in an RSS feed,” wrote Goldman on his Technology and Marketing Law Blog. “However, because it’s implied, I’m just not sure of the license terms. So, in theory, it could be an implied license to permit aggregators to do whatever they want.”
NY Times Confused About Its Own RSS Feed; Orders Takedown Of iPad RSS Reader
from the let-me-explain-the-internet-to-you dept
A whole bunch of you are sending in the bizarre news that the NY Times has sent a takedown for a popular iPad RSS reader because (*gasp*) it offers the NY Times’ own RSS feed. Amusingly, this app was praised by the NY Times itself in a review just last week. It was also praised by Steve Jobs in his keynote at WWDC yesterday. As Wired notes, the details of the takedown request suggest that the NY Times is unfamiliar with the basics of both RSS and the web.
http://techdirt.com/articles/20100608/0840209733.shtml#comments
“Alas it is a common problem. I get angry when people like Chris Potoski try to assert their illegal activity is fine, when they know better.” = Libel
Just saying… be careful. You are stating this Chris guy is doing something illegal. But #1 – He does not own the domain (according to what you posted ) #2 The issue of RSS and copyright is not even close to being resolved in case law.
Thanks for the comments Jesse.
I think you have missed the point. As I have said I have no problem with someone USING/REPUBLISHING the content as long as a) they ask permission from me and b) they attribute the work to me. Failure to do so is an illegal activity as per current copyright law in my country, and the USA where the work was being used.
The Times link is a bit of a hoot isn’t it?
As for libel, well that depends on me deliberately spreading a falsehood, and in this case I believe he IS the owner. His over-reaction (read abuse) to my pointing out copyright law was a dead give away. The fact that he is also a pornographer means there isn’t really much in the way of a reputation to be damaged, and nothing I say will cause a financial loss so basically…no case
Thanks for your reply as well. But I think I see now why he appeared hostile. Your reply here, even to me, is dripping with passive aggressive behavior.
1. You make no statement even here on your RSS feed about it’s use. Therefore under US law, use of your feed is perfectly acceptable. You are putting it out there, people are using it and the feed itself is a link back. The only case you would have in the USA is if they had put your feed inside a membership site. I’m honestly not trying to be confrontational but you are way off base here.
2. Your response to me regarding Libel is like saying I believed he was a rapist so I “outed” him. It does not matter what you ” believe ” to be true. Further you insinuate rather bluntly, that you feel he is a pornographer and therefore is incapable of being damaged. That statement my dear is wrong on so many levels it’s staggering. It comes across as spiteful. Almost as if that is the reason you chose to (erroneously) state he is a criminal.
Whether you believe it to be true or not does not change the fact that your statements here do fit the definition of Libel perfectly. and as far as “damage” is concerned, what if our firm chose not to hire Mr. Potoski or his companies because of you statements here?
Varian v. Delfino and Day, (Santa Clara Cty, 2001). In one of the first Silicon Valley Internet libel cases to reach trial, a jury awarded $425,000 to Varian, the former employer of two disgruntled workers. The two former employees had libeled Varian executives by posting more than 14,000 defamatory messages on over 100 different websites. The jury found the defendants liable for defamation as well as misappropriation of the executives names.
Griffis v. Luban, 633 N.W. 2d 548 (Minn Ct. App. 2001). A Minnesota court ruled that Alabama had jurisdiction over a Minnesota defendant who posted defamatory messages on the Internet. Luban, a resident of Minnesota, repeatedly posted messages on an Internet newsgroup attacking Griffis’s professional credentials. Plaintiff Griffis obtained a default judgment in Alabama, which she sought to enforce in Minnesota. The Minnesota court held that the Alabama court had properly exercised jurisdiction because the effects of the messages were felt in Alabama…
United States Supreme Court has defined “actual malice” as publication of a statement with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard as to whether it was false. New York Times Co. at 279-80, 11 L. Ed. 2d at 706.
Again thanks for the posts but arguing here is not going to help change the law regarding using copyrighted material without attribution. If you feel strongly about it I suggest contacting your closest politician that has the ability to argue on your behalf.
As for your personal comments, well that is your opinion and you are quite entitles to express it.