31 comments

• 

  dankeldsen

  5 months ago

  Interesting problem - and could be tricky for copyright/IP purposes. It does concern me that part of the "social media" game is about rallying commentary in a single place (in theory), so that all can participate. Take that participation and fracture it into dozens (or more) of various reading/sharing services, and it's difficult to have cogent conversations.
  
  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
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  It is a problem, Dan -- and one that just keeps getting worse, with
  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.
  reply
• 

  Daniel Ha

  5 months ago

  Now that would be cool.
  
  FriendFeed is waiting on Disqus to offer a write-enabled API. We're working on that and this will soon be a reality.
  reply
• 

  dankeldsen

  5 months ago

  I hear you - and if Disqus was easier (i.e., widgetized), I'd be wiling to give them a run for the money on my TypePad hosted blog.
  
  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..
  reply
• 

  Louis Gray

  5 months ago

  Here's another great example of a site that does full RSS with comments: Plaxo Pulse.
  
  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
  reply
• 

  Nick

  5 months ago

  there's a similar social reader - Mindity. It's a desktop client (with OPML import/export!)
  http://www.mindity.com/WhatIs.aspx
  reply
• 

  Mark Evans

  5 months ago

  I'm not thrilled about the conversations happening in places other than my blog but what can you do?
  reply
• 

  allen stern

  5 months ago

  this will clearly be this weekend's fun - while i may have a longer response, let me begin by saying that if "asking for permission" is what seems to be recommended, it won't work. Why? Because scoble, arrington, cashmore, macmanus, eldon, etc. will say "fine steal my shit" - and then the rest will be forced to follow.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  I might say "take my content" too, Allen -- it just would be nice if
  they asked, that's all.
  reply
• 

  tonyhung

  5 months ago

  To second that, the fact that they don't' care either way -- as a commission of silence -- means that they're doing it anyway.
  
  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! :)
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  I agree, Tony.
  reply
• 

  allen stern

  5 months ago

  what will happen is simple - small bloggers who are trying to earn a living blogging will be forced to quit - the few at the top currently will remain there indef. because they have already passed the mark where they can't drop below, the "safe level" - but only a few blogs in each category will reach this mark.
  
  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?
  reply
• 

  StevenHodson

  5 months ago

  this is going to be much more than a weekend bitchmeme because whether we like it or not a big can of worms has been opened.
  reply
• 

  Leigh

  5 months ago

  Interesting though if you think about it, there are how many posts on Techmeme on this subject?.... but really, no one place to aggregate the conversation. It's one conversation conceptually but it's happening on 8 different blogs. A service that can bring those together in one? What's not to like about that....
  reply
• 

  chartreuse

  5 months ago

  When I have a conversation with my brother about Alicia Key's new song do I have the right to track where he takes that conversation?
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  Chartreuse, I think you are right about the conversation -- and
  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.
  reply
• 

  chartreuse

  5 months ago

  I think some people are missing the new dynamic, or at least or not happy with it.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  I think in the big picture you are probably right -- provided the
  attribution is there, it is effectively marketing your content. And if
  the attribution isn't there, people will quickly figure it out anyway.
  reply
• 

  khodabakchian

  5 months ago

  @chartreuse I spent a couple of hours trying to understand both sides of this story and I think that your comment was definitely one of the bests out there: a great way to step back and look at the big picture. kudos!
  reply
• 

  khodabakchian

  5 months ago

  @chartreuse I spent a couple of hours trying to understand both sides of this story and I think that your comment was definitely one of the bests out there: a great way to step back and look at the big picture. kudos!
  reply
• 

  Jonathan Bailey

  5 months ago

  I have to agree that this isn't so much about pageviews as it is courtesy. I also agree that RSS feeds are meant to be read, but I also feel, as you do, that what Shyftr is doing, or rather, was doing, went beyond merely reading.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Raoul

  5 months ago

  Mathew, I don't know why you would characterize my actions in protecting my copyright and hard work as "extreme". I've had no success in asking the people at Shyftr to remove my feed from their site via email. They're not responding. And don't let this latest policy change fool you. My feed is still <a href="http://www.shyftr.com/?openagg=4157&onlyagg=1">on their site in its entirety, with all posts displayed unabridged, in full.
  
  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.
  reply
• 

  Raoul

  5 months ago

  Please correct the link in my last comment, it's not displaying properly. Thanks.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  Raoul, I think your position is at the extreme end of the spectrum
  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.
  reply
• 

  Andy C

  5 months ago

  You can only edit comments without a reply which is sensible enough. I think the Disqus blog adminstrator should be all-powerful though.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  I agree, Andy -- I wish I could edit comments that have gigantic URLs
  in them that break my site's design.
  reply
• 

  Andy C

  5 months ago

  Yes. I also have an irritating habit to correct idiotic typos by my army of readers (both of them). My psychologist says I have OCD and should leave well alone but I can't. I simply hate speeling erorrs.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  5 months ago

  :-)
  reply
• 

  zachlandes

  4 months ago

  Its absurd to think that on the something as huge as the world wide web there is the possibility of keeping a conversation to yourself. Once you write it, it is open to discussion, anywhere. People should not profit from your ideas, but at the same time, they can take them and discuss them where they wish. There are enough people on the internet that conversations can occur redundantly (meaning in multiple places). The strongest motivator to stay on a blog author's site is the possibility that he might respond.
  reply
• 

  mathewi

  4 months ago

  Good point, Zach :-)
  reply
• 

  zachlandes

  4 months ago

  My point in action! Thanks, Mathew :)
  reply