I was just wondering if the following website would be eligible for a DMCA notice to be sent to: FiveFilters.org. Their website converts partial feeds to full RSS feeds. Therefore, they display other people's content on their website.

For example, here is a WHT feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/webhostingtalk/allnews

Here is the feed on their website:
http://fivefilters.org/content-only/makefulltextfeed.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2Fwebhostingtalk%2Fallnews&key=&max=4&submit=Create+Feed

I am just using WHT as an example. Is a website like this violating copyrights by displaying that content on their website?

IF they have permission, then its perfectly fine and legal. If not, request for them to take it down, THEN if not, go DMCA (Use a last resort only).

Sometimes. That determination would only be able to be made by the owners of the content who are also the only people who can send a DMCA complaint.

I was just wondering if the following website would be eligible for a DMCA notice to be sent to: FiveFilters.org. Their website converts partial feeds to full RSS feeds. Therefore, they display other people's content on their website.

For example, here is a WHT feed:
http://feeds.feedburner.com/webhostingtalk/allnews

Here is the feed on their website:
http://fivefilters.org/content-only/makefulltextfeed.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2Fwebhostingtalk%2Fallnews&key=&max=4&submit=Create+Feed

I am just using WHT as an example. Is a website like this violating copyrights by displaying that content on their website?

AFAIK, aggregation of publicly available information is is no way illegal, and therefore a DMCA notice would be invalid.

AFAIK, aggregation of publicly available information is is no way illegal, and therefore a DMCA notice would be invalid.Can you site the source of that information?

Can you site the source of that information?

I sited that information (whether legally true or false) in my previous post. If you meant cite, I can't :p Just practicality. If you stick a sign in your front lawn, and some walks by and reads the sign, then tells all their friends what the sign says, instead of telling them to walk by your yard to see it themselves, are you going to send them a DMCA notice?

haha ... Every sight (or cite) is a site.

It's like when I try to type form and it comes out forum.

But if you think everything on the internet is free for the taking, you might want to rethink your position. ;)

If you stick a sign in your front lawn, and some walks by and reads the sign, then tells all their friends what the sign says, instead of telling them to walk by your yard to see it themselves, are you going to send them a DMCA notice?

In that case no not a big deal, however if that person were to copy that sign and say it is theirs and they did it first...that's a completely different ball game. Most of the time the people that use WHT's RSS feed use it to add information to their own websites so it looks like they actually have content.

In that case no not a big deal, however if that person were to copy that sign and say it is theirs and they did it first...that's a completely different ball game. Most of the time the people that use WHT's RSS feed use it to add information to their own websites so it looks like they actually have content.

On the linked page, you'll see in bold black print at the top: "Web Hosting Talk News". You might also visit http://fivefilters.org/content-only/ and see that this site will generate a feed for any URL a user gives. Is it illegal now to offer convenience services?

Is it illegal now to offer convenience services?
The direct purpose of this website is to take content that is owned by someone else and redistribute it. That is not a "convenience service", that is an out and out DMCA violation.

The direct purpose of this website is to take content that is owned by someone else and redistribute it. That is not a "convenience service", that is an out and out DMCA violation.

That is exactly what I was thinking. However, why has nobody sent a DMCA for this? And if anyone has, why is the website still online?

The direct purpose of this website is to take content that is owned by someone else and redistribute it. That is not a "convenience service", that is an out and out DMCA violation.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion, <<removed>>. Google Reader and Yahoo Pipes provide similar service, and I don't see anybody threatening them with DMCA for allowing people to aggregate their favorite RSS feeds.

They don't "take content that is owned by someone else and redistribute it". The USER, of their own volition, puts in a URL, and receives a feed. If the user posts that feed on a public site, that is the fault of the USER, not the service.

Please explain how you came to that conclusion, <<removed>>.

Too bad it's not

Google Reader and Yahoo Pipes provide similar service, and I don't see anybody threatening them with DMCA for allowing people to aggregate their favorite RSS feeds.

Wrong, neither of these try to repackage that information as their own


They don't "take content that is owned by someone else and redistribute it". The USER, of their own volition, puts in a URL, and receives a feed. If the user posts that feed on a public site, that is the fault of the USER, not the service.
Without them, the user would never get that feed in the first place, and the user has nothing to do with them editing the original feed.

Redistribution of feed content, that's fine, as LONG as the feed content is unaltered, and remains within the parameters that the user specifically sets, with all copyrights and links left in.

Redistribution of feed content, claiming it's your own content (which these individuals are doing by placing massive linkbacks to their own website is improper.

Wrong, neither of these try to repackage that information as their own

<<removed>>. Point out exactly where they're "repackaging that information as their own". Note the BIG BOLD PRINT at the top of the feed with the title. Note the lack of any copyright notice in the original feed. They can't reproduce something that wasn't produced to start with.

Without them, the user would never get that feed in the first place, and the user has nothing to do with them editing the original feed.

So you're going to send a DMCA notice to the internet? The internet allows anybody to read anything, and post anything. Then you're going to send a DMCA notice to Microsoft, for writing an operating system that allows users to connect to the internet? You might as well send one to Intel, for creating the 8086 instruction set, which is the basis for modern home computers of the users that are "stealing".

FYI, Google Reader does the same thing, regardless of your denial. See http://omega359.info/snapshot1.png No similarity at all, right :rolleyes:

<<removed>> Point out exactly where they're "repackaging that information as their own".

By adding this information to the feed, they are in fact repackaging it as their own. This isn't just a "one time addition", it is after every post.
. Available tools:...............

So you're going to send a DMCA notice to the internet?

"the internet" does not do this directly.
"the internet" does not steal information and repackage it as it's own
"the internet" is not responsible for theft, the site aiding in said theft is.

By adding this information to the feed, they are in fact repackaging it as their own. This isn't just a "one time addition", it is after every post.

Google is repackaging snippets of every bit of information on the internet as their own by including their linked to "cached", "view in html", "related", etc., in their search results.

<<removed>>

If they have permission it shouldn't be a problem but if they are doing it without then they might be on a sticky wicket.