<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.3.1" -->
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Sued for Reading an RSS Feed?</title>
	<link>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed</link>
	<description>Stories of a Self-published, Entrepreneurial Fiction Author (née Software Guy)</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 28 Aug 2008 09:43:57 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.3.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: J. Timothy King</title>
		<link>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-49970</link>
		<dc:creator>J. Timothy King</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 24 Aug 2007 05:41:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-49970</guid>
		<description>Hi, Ho-Sheng. I feel queasy about derivative works and dropping attribution, too. That's why I release my RSS feeds under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License. But there are unfortunately many bloggers who publish RSS feeds and then get upset if their readers even share the whole RSS feed, with attribution back to the original source. That whole approach smacks of the RIAA suing music fans... And that's a whole other blog post.

BTW, RSS and Atom do include attribution, in the form of permalinks back to the original source. At least I consider that attribution enough.

I don't think I've seen this particular presentation by Van Jacobson, but I've bookmarked it, because it sounds potentially interesting. I like your thoughts on how new tech scares. And I agree there will be entrepreneurs who do not have the built-in fear. Thanks for writing.

-TimK</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi, Ho-Sheng. I feel queasy about derivative works and dropping attribution, too. That&#8217;s why I release my RSS feeds under the Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs License. But there are unfortunately many bloggers who publish RSS feeds and then get upset if their readers even share the whole RSS feed, with attribution back to the original source. That whole approach smacks of the RIAA suing music fans&#8230; And that&#8217;s a whole other blog post.</p>
<p>BTW, RSS and Atom do include attribution, in the form of permalinks back to the original source. At least I consider that attribution enough.</p>
<p>I don&#8217;t think I&#8217;ve seen this particular presentation by Van Jacobson, but I&#8217;ve bookmarked it, because it sounds potentially interesting. I like your thoughts on how new tech scares. And I agree there will be entrepreneurs who do not have the built-in fear. Thanks for writing.</p>
<p>-TimK</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ho-Sheng Hsiao</title>
		<link>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-49855</link>
		<dc:creator>Ho-Sheng Hsiao</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Aug 2007 20:00:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-49855</guid>
		<description>While reading your article, I thought Network 23 was being silly. On introspecting, though, I think I would feel a bit queasy about derivative work or dropping attribution. The point is to get people to listen to my soapbox and attach my words to my identity. RSS feeds currently do not have a technological solution for this -- you have to trust the people reading your words. 

Dr. Van Jacobson presented an idea at Google, which is published &lt;a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&#38;q=google+talk+networking" rel="nofollow"&gt;here&lt;/a&gt;.  He talks about the current failings of the technology we have -- making an assumption that content is authenticated by their originating server rather than by the content itself. Thinking about it, it skips the whole socio-political issue. His thesis was that TCP/IP was an order of a magnitude greater better than telecom lines because packets traveling across the network can be fragmented, and no one cares. Continuing with the logic of the thesis, by breaking up content in a similar way, one does not care where it originates from. This allows a much greater dispersal of the content that's more efficient than hammering a single site. Sounds good technologically ... but looking back in light of your experience, people might not be ready for this idea. Too scary. Our current architecture owes in large part to trying to drive people to virtual spaces we control (or have the illusion of controlling). That is implicit in the metaphor we use.

But hey ... there will be another generation of young geeks who don't have that inherent fear, and they'll do a startup and get a great IPO.

Ho-Sheng Hsiao
Isshen, LLC</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While reading your article, I thought Network 23 was being silly. On introspecting, though, I think I would feel a bit queasy about derivative work or dropping attribution. The point is to get people to listen to my soapbox and attach my words to my identity. RSS feeds currently do not have a technological solution for this &#8212; you have to trust the people reading your words. </p>
<p>Dr. Van Jacobson presented an idea at Google, which is published <a href="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6972678839686672840&amp;q=google+talk+networking" rel="nofollow">here</a>.  He talks about the current failings of the technology we have &#8212; making an assumption that content is authenticated by their originating server rather than by the content itself. Thinking about it, it skips the whole socio-political issue. His thesis was that TCP/IP was an order of a magnitude greater better than telecom lines because packets traveling across the network can be fragmented, and no one cares. Continuing with the logic of the thesis, by breaking up content in a similar way, one does not care where it originates from. This allows a much greater dispersal of the content that&#8217;s more efficient than hammering a single site. Sounds good technologically &#8230; but looking back in light of your experience, people might not be ready for this idea. Too scary. Our current architecture owes in large part to trying to drive people to virtual spaces we control (or have the illusion of controlling). That is implicit in the metaphor we use.</p>
<p>But hey &#8230; there will be another generation of young geeks who don&#8217;t have that inherent fear, and they&#8217;ll do a startup and get a great IPO.</p>
<p>Ho-Sheng Hsiao<br />
Isshen, LLC</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: TechLoaf.blog</title>
		<link>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-48182</link>
		<dc:creator>TechLoaf.blog</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Aug 2007 19:28:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://blog.jtimothyking.com/2007/08/01/sued-for-reading-an-rss-feed#comment-48182</guid>
		<description>&lt;strong&gt;Blog Carnival - best of web 2.0 - August 6, 2007 Edition...&lt;/strong&gt;

Welcome to the August 6, 2007 edition of best of web 2.0 Blog Carnival. This is our largest edition yet! Keep up the good work and... Happy Reading!



Damien Riley presents Riley Central  Damien Rileys Weblog posted at Riley Central.
   
Noric D...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Blog Carnival - best of web 2.0 - August 6, 2007 Edition&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>Welcome to the August 6, 2007 edition of best of web 2.0 Blog Carnival. This is our largest edition yet! Keep up the good work and&#8230; Happy Reading!</p>
<p>Damien Riley presents Riley Central  Damien Rileys Weblog posted at Riley Central.</p>
<p>Noric D&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
