am I wrong? It's likely!lol.
RSS is basically just a subscription service, not a copyright free space. You own your copyright regardless of how content is disseminated
Now, I'm not an attorney, but the rules of copyright are pretty cut and dried in that respect.
Agreed also. I met another 20-yr-old intern of mine who believed creative people should find another way to make money.
He wanted their creative output to be free to everyone. As a RIGHT. Uh-huh. Whatever.
wow. thanks guys. Raj, I had u in mind for this question.
u would not beleive how many people repost my
About.com blog and then ARGUE with me that I am wrong!
Yeah, not Gen-X (that's me). More like Gen-Y, the one who grew up w/ the Internet.
have you tried to post something at the bottom saying that it's copyrighted & cannot be reposted anywhere w/o permission?
That won't stop the unscrupulous, but at least they can't say they weren't forewarned.
great. more good news for writers.
Oh well. I take heart in noting that most of the people who scrape my blogs and articles have crappy Web sites w/ no community.
If they're making money, it's not as much as I make from the original content.
Really? Crap. Most of my published stuff is offline, actually, other than my blogs. I've decided not to waste my time chasing after scrapers
and more time creating more good content.
he's an example of just this kind of activity, not just in what he did but in his attitude towards creative copyright.
Oh well. If they want to spend those resources doing that, more power to them. I'm too small potatoes and too busy to worry about it.
I could theoretically do the same thing, but I can't be bothered. I'm doing what I love, making decent money from it.
Maybe when Im' JK Rowling rich, I'll go after them. But for now it's just too big to worry about.
I know! We're the kings of content!
They can never take that away from us.
Oh, but I can dream. I'd be happy with Danielle Steel's mo ney, tho. Or Stephen King's.