<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DMCA Safe Harbor: Part One</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/</link>
	<description>The leading source of news covering social media and the blogosphere.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 02:30:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
<xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" />
	<item>
		<title>By: anti-est.blospot.com</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-1123065</link>
		<dc:creator>anti-est.blospot.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 21 Apr 2011 01:10:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=7502#comment-1123065</guid>
		<description>REFERENCED: http://anti-est.blogspot.com/2011/04/bloody-establishment-grooveshark-update.html#more</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>REFERENCED: <a href="http://anti-est.blogspot.com/2011/04/bloody-establishment-grooveshark-update.html#more" rel="nofollow">http://anti-est.blogspot.com/2011/04/bloody-establishment-grooveshark-update.html#more</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Christopher</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-584834</link>
		<dc:creator>Christopher</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Sep 2008 23:31:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=7502#comment-584834</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that in copyright infringement disputes arising of of blog postings, it would be important to know the date when a blog is published for the first time. 

Since the dates of blogs can now be altered at will by their writers, can the date of a blog posting&#039;s first appearance always be determined?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that in copyright infringement disputes arising of of blog postings, it would be important to know the date when a blog is published for the first time. </p>
<p>Since the dates of blogs can now be altered at will by their writers, can the date of a blog posting&#8217;s first appearance always be determined?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jonathan Bailey</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-554499</link>
		<dc:creator>Jonathan Bailey</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Aug 2008 00:52:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=7502#comment-554499</guid>
		<description>RogerV: I&#039;m sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Yes, I have heard of these types of scrapers and sites.

Legally, it if is clear to an &quot;ordinary observer&quot; that the new work is based upon the original, that would be considered a derivative work and that would be an infringement the same as if the work were copied verbatim. After all, the same as copyright gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies of a work, it also gives that person the exclusive right to make derivative works. 

Where a derivative work becomes an original one or a fair use is a slippery area but not one most spinners enter into.

So, to answer your question, they are harder to detect and may to less damage to your SEO, but typically are just as much of an infringement.

I hope that helps!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>RogerV: I&#8217;m sorry for the delay in getting back to you on this. Yes, I have heard of these types of scrapers and sites.</p>
<p>Legally, it if is clear to an &#8220;ordinary observer&#8221; that the new work is based upon the original, that would be considered a derivative work and that would be an infringement the same as if the work were copied verbatim. After all, the same as copyright gives the copyright holder the exclusive right to make copies of a work, it also gives that person the exclusive right to make derivative works. </p>
<p>Where a derivative work becomes an original one or a fair use is a slippery area but not one most spinners enter into.</p>
<p>So, to answer your question, they are harder to detect and may to less damage to your SEO, but typically are just as much of an infringement.</p>
<p>I hope that helps!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: RogerV</title>
		<link>http://www.blogherald.com/2008/07/28/dmca-safe-harbor-part-one/comment-page-1/#comment-548823</link>
		<dc:creator>RogerV</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jul 2008 22:21:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.blogherald.com/?p=7502#comment-548823</guid>
		<description>Jonathan - have you seen anything regarding &quot;content spinners&quot;?

In short, there are programs out there used typically for search engine optimization to avoid &quot;duplicate content&quot;. They will find hundreds of small phrases like &quot;writes at&quot; and replace with &quot;is a writer for&quot;. By replacing hundreds of words with synonyms, it&#039;s possible to ... plagiarize? But wait, if a computer rewrites it, is that plagiarism?

Strictly speaking, from an ethical perspective, if one has to ask, it probably is wrong.

I&#039;m curious, however, about the legal implications. I know others have taken articles of mine and rewritten them slightly (possibly by automated program). I use spinners to rewrite my own content, so if it gets syndicated, it doesn&#039;t show up as duplicate content to google.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jonathan &#8211; have you seen anything regarding &#8220;content spinners&#8221;?</p>
<p>In short, there are programs out there used typically for search engine optimization to avoid &#8220;duplicate content&#8221;. They will find hundreds of small phrases like &#8220;writes at&#8221; and replace with &#8220;is a writer for&#8221;. By replacing hundreds of words with synonyms, it&#8217;s possible to &#8230; plagiarize? But wait, if a computer rewrites it, is that plagiarism?</p>
<p>Strictly speaking, from an ethical perspective, if one has to ask, it probably is wrong.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m curious, however, about the legal implications. I know others have taken articles of mine and rewritten them slightly (possibly by automated program). I use spinners to rewrite my own content, so if it gets syndicated, it doesn&#8217;t show up as duplicate content to google.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

