Re: [syndication] Copyright and Syndication

[Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>]

stephen.downes@ualberta.ca <stephen.downes@ualberta.ca> wrote:

>> So it could be claimed that Moreover's categorization and collection of
>> newsfeeds could be considered creative enough to pass the test of
>> originality. Of course, that would be a question for the courts and would
>> depend on the level of categorization that Moreover does.

> Hm. Here is Moreover's top level categorization:
<snip>
> That doesn't meet any criteria I can think of for originality.
> Surely we won't grant to Moreover the exclusive right to classify
> news by geographic region, sorted alphabetically... right?

I think you're misunderstanding. My argument is not that their
classifications are original, but that the work of classifying could be
considered original work, and thus protected under copyright law. To
clarify, it's their work that's protected, not the idea of doing it. So
anyone could do what Moreover is doing themselves and they would hold the
copyright on that version of the information. Of course, IANAL and I'm
totally guessing at all this stuff.

Also, don't misunderstand, I'm totally against patents and copyright and
believe that Moreover should get rid of all their patents and place all
their webfeeds in the public domain. So I don't agree with this position
personally, I'm just trying to explore it.

-- 
        Aaron Swartz         |"This information is top security.
<http://swartzfam.com/aaron/>|     When you have read it, destroy yourself."
  <http://www.theinfo.org/>  |             - Marshall McLuhan