A while back, I discovered something I thought odd. Odd indeed. It was a “reblog” called re:knit.
Re:knit appears to collect the content of other knitting blogs — sometimes in their entirety — and post them in a blog format. Re:knit also archives the entries. So, believe it of not, if I visit re:knit, I can read entries of blogs like “The Panopticon” in their entirety . I mean including illustrations of the ever popular, cute and fuzzy Dolores. Some other blogs are only provided in snippets but I seem to be able to read “Whip it Up” and “Crazy Aunt Purl”, “1knit.1der”, “knitgrrl” and a number of other blogs in their entirety!
Guess what else? If I read a blog at “Re:Knit”, I’m not forced to see the ads for, an individual bloggers cafe press store and will thus not risk spending money on some sort of “Snakes on a Plane” mug or something. Since I’m watching my pennies, I see that as a great service.
Reading at re:knit, I also avoid seeing the sidebar where I might find links to the original bloggers favorite blogs, ads for their own books, charities or anything else the blogger might like me see or promote when I read their blog at their blog site.
Convenient, huh?
Yes! In fact, such is the convenience that today, I re:visited re:knit. I saw something I thought even odder than reblogging original blogs: Reknit was reblogging “microRevolt reBlog” which is, itself, a reblog!
Ok. I’ll admit I’m making this seem weirder than it is. It turned out re:knit reblogged one of the few original articles posted at “microRevolt reBlog”.
Still, the re:knit reblogging of a knitting reblog did give me this idea: I should create the “Re:Re:Knit, A re:reBlog that reposts articles already reblogged by other knitting reblogs!”
Ideally, each re-re-blog published at re:re:knit would let readers know just how many times a particular article has been re-blogged. A high number could be considered some sort of mark of distinction, right?
Maybe I should do this. But is the world ready for such a high tech convenience?
Please leave comments! 8 Comments
Stumble it (and place in Knitting/crochet!)8 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>
Previous posts: ( Gorgonian Scarf(?) Haiku | Home | And the Winners Are….)
Lucia Liljegren: Copyright 2005-2007 Rights to all site content including knitting patterns, generators and haikus reserved.
I think it’s funny you’re so put off by a post being published in its entirety. Guess you’re not familiar with RSS feeds. Feeds can be configured to not contain images, or to only contain 25 words, or even only contain the title of the post… the possibilities are endless. If an author didn’t want their posts syndicated in their entirety, they could just edit their feed setup.
And reblogging a reblog? We already have that. It’s called The Internet.
Comment by Jen — 9/5/2006 @ 9:10 pm
I am put off by reBlogs posting blogs in their entirety — unless they get the original bloggers permission explicitly. I think they are a very odd thing.
I think in the short term, many popular bloggers will stop publishing full feeds.
I also suspect that unless the reBloggers obtain the original blogger’s permission, the reBloggers are putting themselves at some legal risk by publishing full feeds without including any editorial comment of their own.(Copying small amounts for the purpose of comment falls under the “fair use” umbrella of copyright.)
Anyway, the risk for rebloggers is that some blogger or other may decide it’s worth the bother to pursue a copyright violation case. I don’t know who the blogger will be, or when it will happens — but in the long run, I suspect those curious about these things will see some legal fireworks.
Or maybe the tech people will come up with a technological solution.
Comment by lucia — 9/6/2006 @ 5:53 am
Control over what gets published/syndicated/sent to newsreaders is totally under the blogger’s control. As you’ve noted, some have already truncated their feed to only publish the first sentence or two, which prevents people from republishing en totale and also encourages readers to visit the blogger’s site, whether they’re seeing the post in a newsreader or on a reblog site.
Just as RSS syndication is not implied consent to use, ignorance of the technology is not a legitimate basis for an IP lawsuit.
Comment by Jen — 9/6/2006 @ 9:09 am
Jen,
You seem to be very confident that republishing an RSS feed grants an implied license to reblog a feed in its entirety. Your most recent comment seems to suggest the copying is permitted because technology permits it, and that people who don’t know about the technology have no right to sue. (If this is not what you mean to say, I’m sorry for misunderstanding, but that’s the sense I get.)
If you google on “RSS and Copyright” and then read the law blogs discussing this issue you will find you may be wrong.
The general issue about copying RSS feeds has not been adjudicated. When it is, some lawyers will present your argument; others will present the opposite counter argument.
We do not know who will win. This is why I say the rebloggers are taking a risk.
As it happens, quite a few think the answer may be “No, publishing an RSS feed does not grant and implied license to republish a blog in its entirety. It grants an implied license to read the full feed on a private feed reader”.
The exact type of license implied is an important distinction. Some will certainly ask, “Why should bloggers be robbed of the ability to publish feeds that individuals can read of private feed readers to avoid having their entire blog republished in a public-blog like format?”
I think this question is analogous to asking, “Why should book publishers be robbed of their copyright simply because it’s technologically possible to photocopy whole books and bind them at the copy shop?”
The fact is, sensible laws regulate things that are physically or technologically possible. It’s pointless to do otherwise: The Law of Gravity cannot be suspended or reversed by judicial fiat!
So, I don’t believe the legal answer will be: “This type of copying is technologically possible, therefor it is legal.”
(Though, since I’m not a lawyer, who knows? Maybe that is a valid argument.)
So, if you republish posts without asking permission, is there a risk of being sued and losing? The evidence suggests lawyers who publish do feeds are somewhat cautious. For example John Palfrey of Harvard, who republish feeds at places like “Top Ten Sources” tell us their policy is to email the content creators. (They also generally truncate the feeds. The exception is when the blog post is very short.)
If lawyers like Palfrey do not rely on a simple “implied license” argument wouldn’t knitters be prudent to mimize risk by imitatating him?
Possibly the two knitting blogs I mentioned have; I didn’t find any mention of their policy at their blog. If they are asking permission, it might be wise for them to post their policy for others to read.
That might make readers feel more comfortable with the idea of reading a blog at the reblogging sites.
Comment by lucia — 9/6/2006 @ 10:51 am
I don’t think readers need the comforting (being a reader of a few such blogs). It’s bloggers like you, who make money off of hits on your web pages, who are the most discomfited. Your concerns (let’s be truthful here) have very little to do with an altruistic concern for the intellectual property rights of blog authors at large and everything to do with the income you personally make from those Google ads in your right column over there. At least admit that fact.
Comment by Jen — 9/6/2006 @ 11:05 am
Jen,
Well, this is the longest back and forth thread in my comments!
I’m a bit puzzled by your current comment. The reason Article I, Section 8, Clause 8 of the US Constitution instructs Congress to enact copyright laws is to permit people — like other bloggers and, yes, even me– to make money off our own creative efforts.
Absent copyright protection, people who create content would be unable to do profit. I think one of the potential legal problems for reblogs is they may deprive bloggers of income.
As it happens, I think my main blog post suggested the potential for cutting into bloggers’ admittedly small incomes concerns me.
Comment by lucia — 9/6/2006 @ 12:07 pm
I personally think you’re being a bit paranoid and short-sighted. You probably have more to gain by being republished than you stand to lose. If your content is actually interesting to people, they’ll eventually subscribe directly to your feed and skip the middleman. Rebloggers, casual ones anyway, have the least to gain in the situation.
And if your content were that financially precious… why would you be syndicating it for free to begin with??? A blogger saying “I read this and I think she’s batshit” is somehow better than a reblogger posting it with the implied opinion that it’s interesting? Those are some f****d up priorities.
Comment by Jen — 9/7/2006 @ 10:52 am
Jen,
Ok… before my position is somehow suspect because my blog might make a little money and now my position is suspect because I don’t make much?!
A blogger posting snippets about someone’s blog post and commenting on them would be covered under “fair use”. Whether commenting positively or negatively, I think explicit commenting is valuable precisely because it does elaborate on an individual’s opinion.
You may not like people commenting– but it is precisely the reason why copying under fair use is accepted. It’s a firm legal principle! (And of course, most Americans find the “fair use” use principle particularly valuable when newspapers or bloggers discuss politics, taxes, social policy etc.)
On another issue, you explain in what way you think I am being short sighted? What bad thing might happen if, as I suggest, individual rebloggers are required to obtain permission from the 20-40 high quality blogs whose feeds they republish constantly, particularly when they repost full blog articles?
What bad thing might happen if the reBlogs posted a small snippet in their sidebar or footer telling readers they had obtained permission from the copyright holders to post full feeds?
Comment by lucia — 9/7/2006 @ 11:31 am