A lot of people wonder where I learned all the advanced SEO tips and tricks that I know. simply – I took an accredited course and learned from pros. Of course, most freelance writers do not have the money to invest in 1 – 3 SEO courses a year.
…

Frankly, I think they should feel good good that anyone even gives a crap about thier stuff at all, and cares enough to SHARE it…

Just my opinion…

;)

Can you explain why after my article your organization removed login protection from the subdomain under which my content was published?

Also, what is that you don’t understand about ask first and then publish? Not publish for a month and then ask. In addition, the login information was shared beyond the invitees. True?

Finally, you don’t disclose here that not all of those impacted received emails. At some point a mea culpa would make more sense than your attempts to change history.

For the take of an other mobile blogger impacted by the project see Darla Mack’s post, Pimp my Blog – do you have the right to republish?

http://darlamack.blogs.com/darlamack/2006/03/pimp_my_blog_do.html

The Wireless-Watch.Community is simply a platform that was set-up (behind login & password) to provide a working example of a system we designed for mobile media publishers to aggregate traffic and share ad revenue. We invited a target group of publishers to preview the opportunity and sign-up (via a written agreement) if they wish to participate. We will only go public with content that has been authorized. ALL of this information was clearly stated in our original invitation e-mail send to those target contributors.

We provided contributors full-disclosure the project existed, we locked public access during trial phase and offered opt-in participation, with a detailed contract, or full content removal with “no hard feelings”. We have patiently, repeatedly and diligently taken steps to address Debi’s concerns, point-by-point, both in public and via e-mail in private.

Two quick extra closing points I think are important to note:
All articles pulled into the system do indeed include full attribution, with bold link back to the original source page as provided in the RSS feed (that function was built-in from day 1) and it is with the upmost “Regards and Respect” for our fellow mobile media publishers that we have put together this community platform.

In addition, their copyright and TOU informed others who wished to republish my content from their site that they have an option to either artibute copyright to me or to the aggregator. This is completely unacceptable as it gives them the ability to supercede my original copyright which would now be undefendable in any legal sense. Imagine that Napster stated that you might include a copyright statement which indicates Napster is the copyright holder of Emimem’s song catalogue. There’s the rub.

To Random Webmaster, the copyright statement on my blog that says “all rights reserved” means just that. That statement does all the specification required, however, following this incident I may decide to include the definitions of both “all rights reserved” and fair use as many seem to be confused about the distinctions.

I don’t see Technorati, Tech Memeorandum, Google or Megite in the same class as aggregators who publish the full feed or link to their subdomains instead of back to my site. With Technorati and other blog SEs I take a number of deliberate actions to be included within those sites including: add my blog, ping them on updates, and allow their bots. If I want, I can block the Google bot or any other bot from indexing my content. So my choice to participate or not participate remains within my control. And as Darren points out, an excerpt is used rather than the full post.

I’m thrilled to see so many bloggers engaging in this discussion on Darren’s blog as I believe that it is important for content creators to decide what sort of ecosystem they want online. Aggregators are fine so long as they stay within the boundaries of fair use. I’ll talk more about this on my blog and how aggregators serve a role similar to radio stations for music or teevee networks for shows. There was a long standing battle between radio and record labels over who needed who the most. Will blogs and aggregators have the same discussions?

Finally, in other media a fee is paid to the content creators as are residuals and/or revenue shares for the use of their content. There are established business models and revenue models for dealing with original content use. Only online is the claim to copyright treated with disregard and disrespect. At what point do creators of original content cease to create, because the benefits for doing so no longer exist.

If you’re publishing RSS it’s for other systems to read, not just human eyes. If you don’t want something published elsewhere, don’t include it in your RSS. But also include a license in the RSS feed. Isn’t the last S for Syndication?

You can’t fight them, there’s too many. Instead, take advantage of them. When writing articles, incorporate links to your older articles as references, and use those guys to build backlinks.

Don’t publish an RSS feed, it’s that simple. Remove it from your Wordpress.

If a fashion website, as an example, finds your blog RSS useful and relevant for its readers, and decides to publish your RSS feed, what have you got to lose?

On this point I agree with comment # 32.

That way if it happens then at least they’re not getting the whole content.

Plus if the site has high PR having other people publish the summary will be beneficial for google search results.

Going to a free standing site, especially if the site contains a copyright notice, and “lifiting” content and publishing it as one’s own seems dead wrong and is likely always illegal.

“Lifiting” a paragraph or so, attributing it to the original author and (especially) providing a link back is normally fine (fair use) and most likely always legal .. even polite. However, consider, even a paragraph on another blogger’s site may be the bait that causes a click on his/her site …. so s/he “made money off your content”. But the link back may send a reader to your blog that would not have found it and that reader might clcik on that visit or a subsequent vist .. so you have now “made money off their content”.

If you choose to publish an RSS feed however, you need to think through the meaning of “syndication” and decide what use you wish to allow. It’s your content to begin with so you own copyright. But (as mentioned earlier), few ever post any noticeas to what others may do with it … it’s just a feed coming in and how is an individual reader to imgaine what use you wished to allow unless a notice is posted?

There’s a good arguement/issue here that requires thought … but my view is one can’t go off half-cocked complaining what use is made of your feed unless standards are clearly defined.

RE: the full versus partial preference issue … I always opt for summarized content … the whole purpose of tools like Bloglines (to me) is to consolidate and give a teaser … if I wanted the full text of evey blog I’d just go there to begin with.

For a larger blog or a “problogger” this obviously has drawbacks. That said I wish this blog offered full feeds. I find it a pain having to click through to read an interesting article and I do find many on this site.

One day I`ll be brave enough to follow in the Evil Genius Chronicles blog`s habit of deleting all feeds that don`t publish the full content. I agree with his stance- let the reader in on the full conversation or not at all.

As for RSS content theft, this really depends on the type of site and the context in which the text is placed.

A site designed to scrape an RSS feed and present it as the authors own, with no source acknowledgement and no further comments by the site owner is wrong – its just duplicating content and harming the original write.

A full RSS feed quoted with source acknowledgement, along with feedback/comments by the site owner is not quite as bad, especially if the RSS taken is in the context of the ’stealing’ site. I would prefer to see excerpts form a post and a link to the original personally, but sometimes if the post in questions is very short, its easier to quote the whole post rather than try to hack a single sentance out of it.