Re: [syndication] Alternatives to Moreover

["Bill Kearney" <ml_yahoo@ideaspace.net>]

> >What explanation did they give?
> Breaking their T&Cs

Which link did they cite?

> >What price did they quote for continued use?
> They didn't. But mainly because we haven't got the money anyway so it's
> a bit pointless starting negotiations.

For your situation that certainly makes sense.

However, a discussion about what ARE the prices seems like it would help the
consuming population as a whole.  This is sort of a chicken/egg situation.  That
and the "if you have to ask you can't afford it" concept comes to mind.  Most
sites would certainly love to get content at no charge.  Realistically, however,
content providers deserve to be compensated for their labors.  What's not well
known is the range of prices and sources.

> What's interesting about this is that they still provide the feeds on
> publicly accessible URLs and with no security. Now just because the feed
> is accessible doesn't mean you can do what you like with it and
> re-publish it. But I'd still expect people who explicitly don't want
> this to happen to take some minimal steps to prevent it. This is not the
> same as saying don't scrape my pages, it's more like saying don't visit
> this URL. But this is a legal minefield and ultimately it's their data
> so you shouldn't really go against their wishes.

Indeed, the 'deep linking' legal urban legend comes to mind.

-Bill Kearney