How do you protect your feeds?
Here’s an interesting site I came across just now : http://www.healthvoices.com/. Why’s it interesting? Well, because it’s a blog network that takes its members’ feeds, and reposts them in full. They do credit the source, but that’s the only way you’d know that that content wasn’t written by them. Blink, and you’d miss it.
Wanna know how I found it? Search for ‘wurk’ on the big G , and it up it pops in the results. If you weren’t paying attention, you’d think that the content on this page was owned by the site owner. Click through to individual articles, and you’d hope/imagine that you’d be taken to the site where the content originated from. Nope. Each item in each feed is reproduced as its own entry with its own permalink and comment form. They even wrap a bunch of contextual ads around it. Hmmmm.
Now, I wouldn’t care a great deal about this if they’d asked my permission to do this. I’d probably still say no, but that’s not the point. The point is that they haven’t. And that pisses me off.
But the thing that winds me up most is that if I published full feeds for the wurk sites, then the *whole* of our content would be displayed as part of their site, and their readers would have the ability to comment on it, and permalink there. So that is exactly the reason why I only publish the first 200 or so characters of each feed.
I also include at the end of each item a quick, unobtrusive statement that says ‘This is just an excerpt - visit the blog to read the rest of this article!’.
What I might have said ‘yes’ to is if they displayed post headlines that actually link through to the original article on that individual wurk blog. To me, that’s acceptable - it’s half the reason why feeds are published (the other reason being to alert people that there is new content).
So, I’m going to do two things.
1) I’m going to email whoever owns the site and politely ask them to stop reposting the content in full. If they want to display headlines that click through to the original article, then that’s fine with me. Alternatively, another way to solve this would be for a wurk Adsense publisher ID to be used in the contextual ads on his site that are wrapped around our content - meaning that the guy can display all the wurk content he can fit on his pages, but he won’t make a penny from it. Think he’ll go for that one? ;o))
2) I’m going to amend the statement at the bottom of each item in feed to say something like: ‘This is just an excerpt - visit the blog to read the rest of this article. If you are reading this outside of a feed reader, or this content is being displayed on a website outside of the wurk network, then the owner of that site is committing content theft, violating copyright laws, and just generally being an arse.’ Or words to that effect.
What do you think?
**UPDATE: I’ve just being doing a little more browsing aroung Healthvoices.Com, and found a page all about ethics . One question, though… how ethical is it to aggregate content from a bunch of blogs without permission, display it as your own, and wrap contextual ads around it?
Just asking.
Find more posts across the network tagged with:
WURK profile: http://wurk.net/profile/admin
Website: http://barrybell.com
January 22, 2006 9:57 pm
Barry,
A few points:
1) The feeds are posted as you publish them (for distribution, I guess?). This is NOT full content, only excerpts you provide. You can embed ads or anything else you like.
2) We are not stating or implying anywhere that your site is member of our network. Your feed appears in the syndicated feeds section. Exactly as published. With your “excerpt” note and links back.
3) You question ethics. Our ethics efforts focus mainly on MEDICAL ETHICS of blogging. The exact rules for blog/RSS syndication fair use are far from being established. We are open to input.
4) If you do not want to be part of our rapidly growing community of med bloggers, just ask to drop your feed. We might add headlines-only feeds at some point, but not now.
5) If you really want to fume about someone using/monetizing your contents without your permission, complain about Google and Technorati. Go ahead.
If you publish any kind of feed, expect more aggregators to pick it up. Just not everyone would even respond to your requests, like we do.
So you decide what we do. Remove your feed completely or replace with another one you provide.
Regards,
Dmitriy Kruglyak
Publisher, The Medical Blog Network
http://www.healthvoices.com
January 22, 2006 10:43 pm
Dmitriy - thanks for replying. I’m sure you can understand the frustration that many publishers feel when they see their own content (which they are trying to monetise on their own sites) being reproduced in full on another site, side by side with contextual advertising that is earning revenue for whomever is reproducing it.
To me, that doesn’t seem fair. Or particularly ethical.
My other issue is that if a reader landed on one of your pages that reproduced someone else’s content, you are giving them absolutely no reason to click through to the original site. Why would they? They’d permalink to the article ON YOUR SITE, and leave their comments ON YOUR SITE, potentially depriving the writer of valuable discussion about that entry, and of course, valuable traffic.
Your other med bloggers may not mind that you are reproducing their own content in full, however, wurk is a commercial venture, and not a personal outlet.
As I mentioned, I do only publish a 200 character excerpt of each entry in the wurk feeds, as I consider this to be fair use. I really do not mind feeds being reproduced this way - ie, a short excerpt and a clear (and direct) link back to the original blog. But it would have been nice to have been asked first… ;o)
Having said that, I cannot forcibly prevent any publisher from reproducing the entire feed, however, I have also expanded the disclaimer on each item.
Therefore, I expect responsible publishers to truncate any text they reproduce to the first 200 characters - anyone publishing the full feed will also display the disclaimer.
January 22, 2006 11:49 pm
Barry,
As a publisher, who understands AdSense economics, I can certainly feel your pain and frustration. I have to assure you though that the benefit of “profiting” from your content is not worth the hassle.
You are saying that my site gives readers no reason to go to the source. Sorry, but I do not buy this at all. You have full control over headline / excerpt to plant a hook and get people to want to learn more. If your teasers do not capture visitor’s attention they will not visit your site, whether it is a headline or a 20-50-200 word excerpt. You still get more control with us than with Google / Technorati, the way they show your excerpts. While making money in ads, off your content.
Regarding ability to comment on excerpts on our site, we get only a handful of those. Permalinks to excerpts? Why would anyone use them unless they are really interested in contents? And if they are interested, why wouldn’t they visit your site for the real story? So I do not see the visitors confused “en masse”.
If you are really concerned about visitors not being able to figure out our UI (which is constantly evolving), include direct link to your posts (and/or ads) inside the RSS excerpts. We have quite a few feeds that do this. I think it would better serve your interests than appending “this website is an arse” to disclaimer.
Again, fair use of feeds is still a gray area. I do not find it worthwhile to risk HealthVoices reputation over this. As you note in your email to me it is OK to keep things “as is” (with you tweaking the feed). So I figure we are in agreement?
Regards,
Dmitriy
January 23, 2006 12:32 am
Yep - point taken about the amount of profit. But I will counter and say that *anything* you do make is revenue taken away from the original writer - no matter how negligible the amount is.
My feeds are not an issue any more - we’ve cleared that up. As I only publish excerpts, readers have no choice but to click through to my sites to read the rest of the content.
But what about other feeds that you publish in full? If a visitor lands on one of your pages that reproduces an article in entirety from another site, you’re giving them a permalink that points to your site (not the original site, where the permalink *should* point to), you’re also giving them a platform to leave comments on your site (again, not the original site where the comments on that article *really* belong), plus you’re wrapping your own contextual ads around someone else’s content - they’re the parts I didn’t especially agree with.
I just think that writers need to be quite vigilant in making sure no-one else is taking advantage of their work - especially if they rely on that as part of their income.
Anyway, like I said, as far as my feeds are concerned, everything’s cool - we’ve talked via email and cleared a couple things up.
And you didn’t really think I’d write “this website is an arse” in the disclaimer, did you?? ;o))
January 23, 2006 1:12 am
I appreciate that we resolved concerns with your feed in a prompt and reasonable way.
I would argue whether we are taking away revenue from you. Instead I believe that people who find HealthVoices first and browse through our feed directory and/or aggregator would find your blogs, visit them and if interested become regular readers. If that would not be the case, you would take up my offer to remove your feed? Right?
But perhaps we should agree that there is no objective way to measure which way the net benefits flow. So we hope for a mutual benefit.
You are right that people should watch what they put in their feeds. This is one of the responsibilities of running a blog. If you simply want to disseminate your ideas, full feed is OK. If you are focused on driving traffic to your site, use excerpts/links. If you want to make money directly, insert ads. BUT if you have not thought of these issues when starting the blog, expect to rely on it for income and want to blame people who pick up your feed “as is” for lost income… Well, this means you are focusing on things out of your control, while you can get better outcome by focusing on what you can directly influence.
Regarding HealthVoices design, permalinks / comments / ads, we are constantly reviewing these things for changes, but any major updates have to be batched.
Regards,
Dmitriy
January 23, 2006 1:26 am
All very true. However, as I said in my email to you, if I was publishing full content feeds, and another site reproduced my content in its entirety, and in a similar fashion to how you do it, then I would ask that other site to remove that content immediately - without question.
I don’t doubt that my feeds, or at least the headlines, are being displayed elsewhere. I’ve just never seen another site give individual items in other publishers’ feeds their own permalink and own comments section before.
At least not legitimately.
I think it’s a great idea to link to other blogs, and to create a vertical blog directory and network (that’s essentially what wurk is), but I do believe that the full content of, and comments for, each entry should stay on the original site, and that any ‘permalink’ for that entry should also point to the original site.
Your setup simply rang a few alarm bells as far as I was concerned.
January 23, 2006 1:58 am
Well, looks like we found the proper tradeoff. You provide feed of excerpts and get into our directory. We both understand the give-and-take and that’s why we were able to achieve the resolution.
I hate it when someone uses an excuse “it is a PR problem”, but I really do think because HealthVoices approach is new (shall I say experimental?) there is an issue of perception on the first look.
Finding ways to avoid ringing these alarm bell is important to us. I hope I demonstrated that our intentions and ethics are proper.
January 23, 2006 2:12 am
OK. Just for the record, though, I’m not saying that I agree with, or endorse, your approach.
B
January 23, 2006 2:42 am
Yes, I acknowledge the difference between simply “going along” and fully endorsing / recommending something.
What is certain is that our approach will adjust as fair use policies for feeds get established.
January 23, 2006 5:37 am
I think you’re too polite. Send them a C&D. Send a DMCA takedown to their ISP.
Matt
January 23, 2006 6:04 am
This is ridiculous. I offered Barry to remove the feed and he chose to keep it. What is unclear here?
February 2, 2006 2:12 am
He’s done the same thing to me, however in my case he’s copied my entire posts.
Great way to quickly destroy your credibility in the blogoshpere…
February 2, 2006 8:19 am
Well Cary, you had the full feed published and that is why the entire posts were aggregated. Now upon your request, your feed has been fully removed. You are the first person who asked for this.
Great way to quickly waste time and energy is to obsess about these things. If you want to blog for profit and the results are not there, it is not because someone is aggregating or indexing your feeds.
February 2, 2006 8:42 am
>>”Well Cary, you had the full feed published and that is why the entire posts were aggregated.”
That’s like saying “you left your bike just standing there in the street, so I thought it would be OK to take it.”
Dimitry - that’s the kind of attitude that won’t make you any friends in this industry.
How about trying to work something out (to everyone’s benefit) with the bloggers whose content you’re aggregating, reproducing in full, and wrapping your own ads around, instead of telling them they’re wasting their time and energy?
Then maybe you could both get what you wanted.
Just a thought.
People are more protective over their content than you might think, y’know.
February 2, 2006 9:09 am
The bike analogy does not work. A physical object can be used by only one person at a time. Bike is not “published for syndication”. Did I see a disclaimer on Cary’s site on proper vs. improper uses of the feed? NO! He has a caption saying: “Get our RSS Feed”. So I did.
How do you define “this industry”? Pro-blogging? Blog network crowd? People who aspire to pay bills off AdSense? One thing is certain: successes / approaches of the early few will not work for the next wave. I feel sorry for those who do not understand this, read stories about six-figure bloggers, invest all of their efforts and get frustrated by AdSense numbers. If they want to blame someone, do not blame me. Google makes more money off the other people’s content.
BUT, I am always happy to consider mutually beneficial proposals.
February 2, 2006 9:17 am
Here. If you want to bash someone over fair use, copyright, etc, etc, etc, take a look at what Google is doing:
http://battellemedia.com/archives/001659.php
The rules are not established yet.
February 2, 2006 9:59 am
Dimitry, son. Your attitude to all this stinks. And no, it’s not specifically the Adsense earnings that I’m talking about. What you’re effectively doing (by giving each aggregated feed item its own permalink on your site, and the ability to comment on it on your site), is potentially taking away the interaction between the original writers and their readers.
That’s the worst part of it.
If a reader happens to land on your site, reads a feed item that belongs to someone else, and wants to link to that item (and maybe leave a comment), they’re probably going to link to your site, and leave a comment on your site.
I’m just repeating myself now, but that’s where the original writer loses out most.
Don’t keep pulling Google into this, either. If you think they’re doing wrong, then it doesn’t make it OK for you to do it, either.
And lastly, if the Adsense earnings aren’t important, then pull them from the pages displaying your aggregated feeds. Or, at the very least, allow the writers who’s content you’re aggregating to use their own Google Adsense ID’s wherever ads appear near their content.
I can guarantee that that will get you a much better reaction from the writers than telling them they’re wasting their time.
Oh, and take our feed down, too, please. There - that’s two of us. Who’s next?
February 2, 2006 10:13 am
Your feed is removed. I wish you the best, “father”.
Further arguing is pointless. Our positions and options are clear. I do not even want to bother challenging your claim that the writer is the only one entitled to own all the discussion.
The only thing I am still curious about is how you define “this industry”.
February 2, 2006 10:34 am
>> “I do not even want to bother challenging your claim…”
Good idea - I didn’t even make that claim.
This industry? I don’t know… let’s describe it as self publishing, nanopublishing, micropublishing, small-time publishing, even professional blogging if you want. It’s something that’s not really been possible to such an extent before, but now, yep…. it’s a whole new industry. OK, so the majority of people trying it probably won’t make their fortunes. But some have. And many more will.
Just like you’re trying to do, I assume.
But as with any industry, anyone who tries to take an unfair advantage is going to be called out. Even more so with this one.
February 2, 2006 10:56 am
>> This industry? I don’t know…
Your honesty is refreshing. Pretty clear that “i-don’t-know-industry” does not have rules set in stone?
I hate to break it to you, but no one has made a big success of anything without some kind of “unfair advantage”. If you do not have it, you are in trouble. Perhaps you should check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743256050/sr=1-2/qid=1138877224/ref=pd_bbs_2/102-0085951-5316939?%5Fencoding=UTF8
“Unfair” does not mean illegal or unethical. For companies like Weblogs Inc. and Gawker it was just being early (and having cash upfront) before the profitable niches were locked up. Now they are way up there in links hierarchy.
At this point in the game the advantage better be something else. What will it be for wurk.net?
February 2, 2006 11:09 am
By saying ‘unfair’, you do realise that I mean ‘unethical’. I didn’t want go go so far as to say illegal, because that’s not as clear cut.
And no… there are no rules set in stone. Maybe there never will be.
But at the end of the day, you’re the one who’s pissing other writers off by taking their full content and repackaging it - with ads and comments and permalinks - on your site.
That’s your choice. Fortunately, it’s not you who decides whether that’s the right choice.
February 2, 2006 11:26 am
You are not the final arbiter on ethics either.
There are plenty other practices in “this industry” that would raise eyebrows on ethics. Like exploiting writers in the 3rd world, promising them get-rich-quick schemes and selling “become-a-blogger-millionaire” courses and books to the unsuspecting public. Like James Frey.
We are not engaging in any of those. What about you? Owners of other networks?
Drop your “holier than thou” attitude, buddy.
February 2, 2006 11:32 am
Hey, if you think there’s absolutely nothing wrong with what you’re doing, then good luck to you.
B
February 2, 2006 4:04 pm
“I feel sorry for those who do not understand this, read stories about six-figure bloggers, invest all of their efforts and get frustrated by AdSense numbers. If they want to blame someone, do not blame me.”
Who the hell are you talking about?
February 2, 2006 7:16 pm
They can recognize themselves. I will not point fingers, since how can one know for sure what is inside someone else’s mind?
I think Andy Hagans put it very well here. Read that entire thread. Though unlike me he does not even feel sorry:
http://chartreuse.wordpress.com/2006/01/27/andy-hagans-and-the-art-of-leaving-it-all-onstage/#comment-82
Best of luck to all. I am done with this discussion.
February 2, 2006 7:36 pm
You mean this part?
>> “If they are meant to be successful, they will take a bit from me, a bit from you, a bit from Scrivs, a bit from Darren, a bit from 1000 other web sites they like, form a plan, and work their a**es off. Then, in 3 years, they will be making decent money.”
Hagans is talking about taking inspiration and ideas from others, not ripping off their content.
Are you really telling me that you believe that post condones content theft? Pardon my French, but Jesus. H. Fucking. Christ.
February 2, 2006 7:50 pm
There is a lot of inspiration in aggregation-driven models. I mentioned Google and Technorati for a reason.
The argument we are having is a lot like the one between Google and book/news publishers. If you read the latest on their debate you would be amazed how similar the reasoning is.
Yes, we may need more work on tweaking the policies to avoid upsetting people, but we’ll get there.
February 2, 2006 7:55 pm
‘Tweaking’? Ha. You kill me.