With all the talk lately about what people can or can't do with other sites' content, it's only going to get more confusing. Steve Yelvington perfectly lays out the problem that a number of people have been coming to terms with. Once a site offers up an RSS feed, does that mean anyone can do anything with it? If not, how should they limit it? Some sites claim that feeds are only for "non-commercial" use, however that generally seems to assume that the feeds are there for people to put on their website for public display, rather than to use in an aggregator. Yelvington points out some different "licensing" policies that different RSS providers use, showing how confusing it can get. However, I think the problem may be even worse. Concerning the issue I laid out above... if a professional investor reads an RSS feed and makes a buy or sell decision based on that information, hasn't he used the RSS feed for commercial purposes? If a blogger who runs ads on his or her site, uses an RSS feed to find something useful to post to the blog, has he or she violated the non-commercial claim? Once again, the issue comes back to "control." Content providers need to learn to let go. Content users want to be free to do what they want with the content that's out there. That's what's so nice about RSS. Slapping silly, unenforceable regulations on it doesn't help your users, it just confuses them and makes them look elsewhere for content without restrictions.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Stopping 23andMe Will Only Delay The Revolution Medicine Needs
- Abusing The Surveillance Scandal To Punish Internet Freedom Even More
- Bruce Schneier On The Feudal Internet And How To Fight It
- US Free Trade Agreements Are Bad Not Just For The Economy, But For The Environment, Too
- James Clapper Thinks That NSA Employees Will Sell Out Our Nation After A Few Days Without A Paycheck