May 8, 2009
Blogosphere Department
USLaw.com Strikes Back
When Scott Greenfield complained about an outfit called USLaw.com which was republishing his blog articles in their entirety, I didn't think they were doing anything terribly wrong because Scott's blog publishes a syndication feed, and this is what syndication looks like.
Scott disagrees. He doesn't think that's proper use of a feed, and he says my position indicates that I don't think my original content has value. My co-blogger Joel also disagrees with me, but he's less diplomatic: "the SOB is selling my stuff, without my goddamn permission." Since intellectual property lawyer Marc Randazza agrees with both of them, I have to concede. The rules must have changed since the wild-west days when I learned about RSS feeds.
In some ways, my disagreement with Scott and Joel is a culture clash. I do think my original content has value, but I have different ideas about how to exploit that value. Scott is blogging about his profession, and Joel is a professional author, so I think they have more invested in distributing their original content. On the other hand, I'm blogging for fun about stuff outside my area of expertise.
It's like they're Metallica and U2, and I'm just an indy garage band. They're worried about the threat of piracy, but for my purposes, obscurity is the greater threat.
Anyway, USLaw.com has responded to this in a most entertaining way.
Dear Mr. Greenfield,
I was sorry to hear that you are unhappy with the way our web site has made use of your content. We appreciate the hard work you've put into your blog, and we felt our readers would appreciate it as well. In addition, many bloggers feel they benefit from being listed in our directory. Nevertheless, it was not our intent to offend you or make illegitimate use of your content, and in light of your objection, I have removed your blog from our site. I hope that we can pursuade you to reconsider at a later date.
is what *I* would have written.
The folks at USLaw---which may just be a guy calling himself "Gregory Chase"---took an...alternative...approach:
Scott Greenfield - Simply Unjust or Forgetful?
Some of USLaw.com's responses to Scott Greenfield's erroneous accussation have been censored and removed from Simple Justice's comment thread. What follows is an updated and less passionate interim comment.
Scott Greenfield is a prolific and rambunctious law blogger with an admitted yen for controversy (perhaps one that is occasionally greater than his yen for fairness). He represents the best and unfortunately, in this case, the risks of what the law blog community offers (one sided intellectual bullying). We are surprised by his unjust behavior in this particular matter.
Mr. Chase has also been leaving comments of a similar nature on Scott's Simple Justice and here on Windypundit.
So, while trying to build a legal web site---and having some success, judging by the page rank---he's decided to badmouth a top legal blogger and accuse him of censorship because he won't let him post their comments on his blog. Does he realize this makes him look unprofessional? And a little crazy?
When I titled my previous post "The Evil that USLaw.com Does," it was just a tongue-in-cheek title for a post in which I argued that USLaw.com wasn't as bad as Scott thought, but they were still making a few mistakes. After a response like this one, I think I have to reassess the level of evil upward.
(To be fair to USLaw, they also claim to have asked for and recieved permission from Scott to list his blog in their directory. They list my blog too, but I looked through my email and I can't find any requests from them. Make of that what you will.)
Seeing how Mr. Chase has responded, I can't help but think that Scott was responding to more than just the theft of intellectual property. Being a criminal lawyer, he probably encounters psychopathic personalities all the time, and I imagine he picks up the clues pretty quickly when he encounters someone who will be trouble. I think he must have had a Blink-style intuitive flash about just how much craziness was hidden behind the USLaw.com website.
Scott has put up his own post about all this. As is often the case, Joel has posted the best comment:
You know, just the other day I was talking to myself. Jdog, I said -- I call myself that -- it'd be a really smart thing to infringe on the intellectual property -- copyright, trademarks, whatever -- of a smart, prickly guy with a law degree. Maybe he wouldn't notice. If he did, maybe he wouldn't care. If he cared, maybe he wouldn't complain. If he complained, maybe I could bully him into backing down.
Scott Greenfield is pretty far from the aggressive lawyer stereotype you see on TV shows, but you'd have to be nuts to think you can intimidate him like this. I mean, really, Gregory, you're threatening to embarass him with an email? This is a guy who makes a living by telling federal prosecutors to go fuck themselves.
And have you noticed how many other lawyers are dropping in to leave comments? It's like you strapped raw steaks to your body and jumped in the shark tank.
The good news is that most of these guys are criminal lawyers. That's a good thing for you because their job is getting people out of trouble. When you get right down to it, they don't really want to hurt you.
The bad news is that Marc Randazza has also jumped in. He makes his living from these kind of lawsuits---hell, he teaches this stuff---and he clearly enjoys his work. When he says "I think it would be a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavor to sue the living shit out of 'Mr. Chase'", he's speaking as a guy who knows exactly how to do it. (Especially since USLaw.com is republishing his blog as well.)
Understand, when all is said and done, while I have not granted any rights to USLaw.com to re-publishe Windypundit content, it still doesn't really bother me. Of course it doesn't really help me either. In the last 3 months, referrals from USLaw.com have amounted to 0.08% of my traffic. I'm pretty sure I could drum up more interest by scrawling my URL on a few bathroom walls.
Addendum: Events have overtaken me. The USLaw.com site was down last night, and now that it's back, it's only publishing summaries and it's linking to the full articles at the original blogs. That's the right way to be a part of the community rather than just leeching off it.
9 Comments
Leave a comment
.
It is, however, still using and transforming bloggers' logos by superimposing its own logo on top of them, as (at the moment) the link to the USLaw version of Marc Randazza's Legal Satyricon shows.
Mark, I wasn't clear from your original response to Scott's complaint whether you were making a legal point or merely a prudential one -- whether you were disagreeing that USLaw was breaking the law, or merely disagreeing with Scott that a blogger should care. I think this post clarifies nicely.
There is still a nofollow tag, at least on links to Scott's most recent post (or most recent as of a few minutes ago).... it seemed from comments at SJ that the nofollow tag was an issue in terms of something technical I do not understand.
Ken, In my original post I was disagreeing-but-willing-to-listen-to-someone-smarter on the legal point of whether offering a feed was also implicitly granting rights---similar to how sending a letter to a newspaper grants them a publication right. Everybody tells me I'm wrong.
As for whether a blogger should care, that's obviously a personal decision, but I think unless you're experiencing real harm, you're better off not wasting your time on it. Unless, of course, you can get a blog post or two out of it...
I think it is pretty clear that offering a feed does not in any way also imply a grant of republication rights. Think of a feed as having a free newsstand for your weekly newspaper. Anyone can take one for free. However, if you take one for free, then photocopy it but put your own ads on it, and your own brand on it, and distribute it for profit, then you've committed all kinds of copyright and trademark sins.
it's only publishing summaries and it's linking to the full articles at the original blogs.
I just checked and saw 100% of a post I did today up at his site. And the thief has surrounded it with ads for his benefit.
d, I posted a brief explanation of USLaw.com's use of "nofollow".
Yup. From my POV, the legal aspects of many things look like magic spells, and I think poor Chase has some of the same POV that I do. Trouble is, I'm pretty sure that "but it's an RSS feed!" isn't one of the certified, law-talking-guy magic spells that enables a kid living in his Mom's basement to take another guy's stuff and call it his.
As always, the guys with law degrees are invited to tell me if I'm wrong. I don't mind being corrected, but I'm pretty sure I've got that right, at least this once.
But, even if, arguendo (I do love typing that word) "but it's an RSS feed!" is one of the certified, law-talking-guy magic spells that enables a kid living in his Mom's basement to take another guy's stuff and call it his, the moral aspects of what this clown is doing are pretty obvious and pretty awful.
Thanks for the explanation Mark. I had been wondering whether clicking on a link from WindyPundit or Simple Justice would increase the "royal we's" traffic.
As Randazza has said, I have said, Ken has said, others have said, there is a short, sweet answer to Jdog's question: No, "it's on an RSS feed" is not one of our magic spells that makes stealing things okey-dokey. Not even if Chase thinks it it. Not even if Chase strenuously thinks it is. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with obtaining permission to use copyrighted content and trademarks.
I think it's now been explained ad naseum how this differs from feeds that do not do what Chase does, how fair use is different, etc. It's just not a tough law call and there's no wiggle room involved. It's simply illegal. It's also immoral, in the sense of deserving moral condemnation, because it's being done for pecuniary purpose. It's just plain wrong in every way.
And that's what this law-talking guy has to say.