Community Page
- www.mathewingram.com/work Jump to website »
-
Subscribe -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
-
Recent Comments
- "1. Just because the New York Times does something doesn't make it right. 2. Describing something as a rumour, or putting it in the form of a question, doesn't make it OK to...
- Thanks a lot for sharing
- I think this is the dangerous trend we are on that the media only tells people what it wants and attempts to manipulate than allow people to make up their own mines
- It would be nice if we all made our own clothes out of hemp fiber, and used wind power to generate all of our energy, and so on. But that probably isn’t going to happen any time soon either.
- dsfasdfsf
Jump to original thread »
I checked into Twitter this evening to find a message from Louis Gray — who seems to be everywhere in social-media these days — about Shyftr, a new community for sharing RSS feeds. Cool, I thought. Maybe it’s like a new version of Google Reader, or FriendFee
... Continue reading »
1 year ago
Then again, commenting is largely broken on blogs - it is far too painful to track the threads you want, on most blogs. No doubt why you've integrated Disqus, and I've gone for Intense Debate.
Cheers,
Dan
1 year ago
more and more places like FriendFeed where comments appear and you
can't see them even if they're talking about your content. I hope
some day that won't be a problem. If I could click a button and have
FriendFeed comments integrated into Disqus I would do it in a second.
1 year ago
FriendFeed is waiting on Disqus to offer a write-enabled API. We're working on that and this will soon be a reality.
1 year ago
The nice thing about the rate of innovation in social media these days, is that (with any luck) neither one of these issues should take all that long to work their way out as solutions.
And where is CoComment? Seems to be lying dormant..
1 year ago
Original Story: Who Owns This Conversation?
http://therealmccrea.wordpress.com/2008/04/12/w...
Plaxo Pulse: Who Owns This Conversation?
http://pulse.plaxo.com/pulse/events/show/43867506
1 year ago
http://www.mindity.com/WhatIs.aspx
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
they asked, that's all.
1 year ago
Whether or not such things mean anything, its the principle of the thing, certainly, as I have neither the strength, energy or resources, to do anything about it other than blog about it (sad or pragmatic -- I'll let you do decide! :)
1 year ago
1 year ago
i think today i will take the 2 new developer books i received this week - both are about 2500 pages (c++ and vb 2008) scan each page and put them on my developer site - and put some ads there too.
why not right?
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
A few years ago when some newspapers were trying to stop links to there content didn't most people realize they were crazy?
Holding on to anything is futile.
Even on the net.
The real conversation should be about attribution. Really.
1 year ago
believe me, I am in favour of letting it happen anywhere, which is why
I have a full-text feed to begin with. But I think it crosses a line
when someone uses my content to create a business around. If someone
recorded you talking about something and then sold those tapes or put
advertising on them or whatever, how would you feel about that?
Attribution is part of it, but I don't think it's the whole solution.
1 year ago
If someone wants to go through the trouble of taking my blog posts, promoting them, all so they can get ad money from them, I really wouldn't care. really. As long as I get credit it's all good.
It actually makes me more valuable, right?
How am I diminished in any way? Unless there presentation is crappy. But then they won't be around long anyway.
I guess I don't believe in the one sized pie theory. Creating a bigger audience for my work is good to me.
From what I've seen, the biggest complaint is about diminishing pageviews. In my opinion writers shouldn't be paid by only pageviews anyway. As a writer that forces me to pander to the audience instead of writing from my gut. And that just brings out crap.
If your content is really valuable folks will probably go to where the author is so they can bounce ideas off of him/her. If you are adding nothing to the conversation but a fact about a particular thing then your information isn't really valuable because facts aren't that valuable. Facts can be gotten anywhere.
I'm rambling. Sorry about that. (So use to letting pictures explain things!)
There are a lot of issues here. Some more important than others. The bottomline though, in my view, is that if someone wants to build a business on my content, increasing my audience, does me no harm. In fact they are just making me more powerful without any extra work on my part.
People provide full feeds so the audience can get what they want, how they want. Not doing that in this case is a tad bit hypocritical to me. The writer is still in control.
Just build a wall. Stop full feeds. And see popular you really are.
1 year ago
attribution is there, it is effectively marketing your content. And if
the attribution isn't there, people will quickly figure it out anyway.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
It showed great disrespect to the bloggers they used the feeds from and I'm glad they changed their policy.
On that note, until we get a court ruling about the implied license with RSS issue, these matters will continue to pop up. Fortunately, even if there is one, which most lawyers I've spoken with think is unlikely, it will be trumped by an actual license, such as a CC one.
In the end, what is truly needed is more clear licensing for RSS feeds and a system of use that is similar to what we currently have with robots.txt for search engines.
1 year ago
I for one don't care what they call their service, or how they want to couch their actions in words that make it seem less outrageous, but to me, what they're doing is simply theft. It's illegal, and it's copyright infringement. I keep full copyright on my work, and on my site, it's clearly marked as "All Rights Reserved". What part of "All Rights Reserved" don't they understand? How screwed up do they have to be to think they can build a business around my content (and others' as well) without paying for the right to use it or even asking permission, or allowing people to opt in?
I have no other recourse but to submit a DMCA take-down notice. I'm not going to let them get away with wholesale copyright infringement.
1 year ago
1 year ago
simply because you publish an RSS feed, which sites like Shyftr (or
Google Reader, or FriendFeed) can capture quite easily -- and by
publishing it, I think you are effectively encouraging sites to do so,
perhaps not in a strictly legal sense but certainly in terms of
perception. If you don't want them to take it, you could always
publish a partial feed, or even an invitation-only feed.
As for the link, I'm afraid Disqus doesn't let me edit comments --
only you can do that.
1 year ago
1 year ago
in them that break my site's design.
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago
1 year ago