luciablackboard

Jason, First: In mid-August, I discovered my site was being copied. I communicated with Newsblur by email requesting that my original and story views be removed. I then repeated my request on twitter and was told that it had been removed. I replied that it still displayed. It continues to display.

So, my site is supposedly already "removed". Nevertheless, if I visit http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/ both the story and the original still display if I click around. I'll be more than happy to take screenshots for you. Also, I can report the Newsblur bot continues to return to my site to make fresh copies or the front page. Clearly, if it is not the intention of Newsblur to display fresh copies, these return visits should be a pointless waste of time for a bot.

Clearly, it is not particularly simple to get Newsblur to displaying fresh copies of pages on the web.

But let us suppose it was a simple as you suggest.

I would suggest that the practice of assuming that all content is open-domain is a risky one for Newsblur. Copyright law has potentially heavy fines for unauthorized copying. Newsblur would be wise to reconsider the notion that it is sufficient for content providers to watch diligently for unauthorized copies and follow up by hunting down Newsblurs email so they can "opt-oubllby Newsblur thinks they can advance some fair-use argument why they can simply copy 100% of front pages of blogs. I don't know what that might be-- but since I can prevent display using javascript I'm content to not pursue that issue.

I would suggest that no matter what a judge might decide in a copyright dispute, if Newsblur is going to send out a bot to make copies, rather than suggesting content providers email them with requests to not-archive, they ought to visit robots.txt, obey it, and failing that obey no-archive directives included on web pages. To do otherwise is-- to put it mildly-- impolite.

I might also add that while Newsblur might prefer content creators to communicate with them to have their 'original' views removed from Newsblur, content creators might find it simpler or preferable to drop in javascript. Dropping in the javascript would suffice to break your Newsblur frames and the frames of other as-yet- undiscovered entities who have decided they wish to frame content and/or copy and then frame the copies.

I'm sure no content provider would object if Newsblur detects this framebreaking so it doesn't spoil the Newsblur experience. But based on my visits to http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/ it seems Newsblur does not auto-detect framebreaking.

The social and intelligence aspect of Newsblur may well attract readers. I think that's an interesting concept.

However,I anticipate some bloggers and newspapers will react negatively to NewsBlur's practice of copying the full html of front pages and making those copies readily available at a Newsblur hosted site. (Example: http://newsblur.com/reader/page/1100897. I've archived the current Newsblur copy at http://www.webcitation.org/6ASIXkYIy .)

I also suspect that some bloggers and content providers will be annoyed when they discover their content framed and will return to the practice of javascript framebusting. Apparently ScienceBlogs has initiated framebusting: See https://getsatisfaction.com/newsblur/topics/story_view_takes.... I suspect other large blogging networks and news agencies will begin to do so as well.

Luckily, it's simple enough for content providers to write javascript framebusters that break ordinary frames (used in Newsblur's "story" view) and also redirect when someone displays an unauthorized copy of the full html of their content (used in the "original" view).