I Like Blog Net News, Yeah, I Said It
Mar 26th, 2008 by Nola
First, some background. For those who are not in the know, Blog Net News (BNN) is a site that aggregates blogs by category and by major cities. My blog is listed under Blog Net News–New Orleans. The owner of this site is Dave Mastio. The local editor is Greta Perry.
Now, BNN has been getting spit upon lately by some bloggers. And this made me scratch my head because my experience with BNN has been a very positive one. So I read the rants and have found enough inaccuracies that I decided to write this post if for no other reason than to defend why I have BNN-NO listed in my blogroll.
Let’s look at something I really like: Facts. I am going to take these slowly and in number order so when you bash me later you can easily list which parts you disagree with.
1. There seems to be much loathing for Dave Mastio and much discrediting of him because, they say, he is a Bushie. He did write for the Bush administration, but not for Bush. In fact, he was the former speechwriter for the United States Trade Representative and he worked on the Australia FTA and the Central America FTA. If you can name who the US Trade Rep is (or what the FTAs do, even) without googling it, then you may have a beef. Otherwise, calling him a Bushie without reviewing the content of those speeches is nothing more than propaganda. And it is all irrelevant because BNN lists all blogs, regardless of a blog’s political bias. And, incidentally, more bloggers are liberal than conservative and I’d suspect the blogs on BNN are likewise. Moving on.
2. It is alleged that BNN does not link back to your blog. This is, bluntly, FALSE. It does link back. If you click on the title of your post, it redirects to your site. If you click on the name of your blog, it brings you to another BNN page that shows blurbs of your blog’s most current posts. Click on one and it takes you to your blog.
3. Some say BNN posts bloggers’ entire posts. Again, this is FALSE. Unless your post is really, really short. BNN posts blurbs.
4. It is argued that BNN keeps traffic from your site. I suppose the argument is that why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free? In this case, the reason is to read the entire post. I can only speak to my blog, but my stats clearly show traffic coming FROM BNN. And I also know that I use BNN to GO to others’ blogs. It in no way keeps me from visiting another’s blog.
5. BNN makes ad dollars and doesn’t pay the blogs listed. This is TRUE. And this is just like all the other aggregators out there. The remuneration to the bloggers is exposure. The idea is you get more traffic. And hopefully that traffic will click on your ads. I am not the least bit bothered that BNN has ads.
6. It is argued that blogs listed on BNN are being damaged by reduced ad dollars on the actual blogs. I suppose the argument is that due to reduced traffic to your own site (No. 4) and that BNN has its own ads (No. 5), that your blog is making less in ads. Since I don’t believe traffic is reduced (and believe it may actually be increased) nor am I bothered by No. 5, I simply do not believe that blogs listed on BNN are being financially hampered is an accurate conclusion that can be reached.
7. BNN will not remove a blogger not wanting to participate. Again, FALSE. To my knowledge, everyone who has been asked to be removed has been removed in a reasonably short period of time. Of course, when you are pissed off, 24+ hours does not seem “reasonably short.” But it is.
8. Then there’s the pesky “he’s violating my copyright” argument. This is the pet-peeviest of all because it offends the lawyer in me. Let me state a few premises to begin: (a) blogs are on the internet; (b) the internet is by definition a public place; (c) if you have an RSS feed, you are allowing anyone the access to do what BNN is doing–scraping your feeds; (d) prior permission is not need by law, nor is it a violation of your copyright to not get it, to scrape your feeds (if it was, folks would need your prior permission to get your RSS feed, and I would assume for those bloggers that have that bright orange button on their blogs, that this permission is implied); (e) I am an attorney but not an Intellectual Property attorney.
I did more than I suspect many bloggers bashing BNN have done: I talked to an IP attorney about BNN, and I even had her look at the BNN-NO site. She did not do a full review of the legal issue, but her cursory review suggests that there are no violations occurring; that it falls under the fair use exception and buttressed further by a court-created exception relating to items of news. Bottom line, unless you have actually talked to an IP lawyer and have been explained this extremely murky area of sophisticated law, don’t spout the law. If you are an IP attorney, or you play one on TV, please feel free to clarify this point for us.
When you boil it all down, what seems to really be pissing people off is that BNN did not first ask people to be listed. He violated blog etiquette. And folks are really not feeling the love from BNN. If you are really worried about having your feeds scraped (sounds nasty, doesn’t it?), then look into removing the feed button, or adding a request that you be contacted before your feed is linked. It’s not too hard.
And let me close with saying that it was because of BNN-NO that I found many, many NOLA bloggers that I had not known existed, bloggers I have since met in person and really am the better for knowing. Was that worth the value of ad dollars attributed to my blurbs listed on BNN? Without a doubt.
I was listed on BNN’s site for Charlottesville bloggers when I lived there. I never used it and never saw a good use for it in all honestly. Part of what I don’t like has nothing to do with the founder or local editors. My beef is that bloggers, or most of them, don’t write lead paragraphs meant to draw in the the reader. Journalists use the “tease”, but I prefer a looser structure and the odd titles of more creative writers. BNN, or any reader that publishes just the blurbs, leaves me not wanting to click on the title. Call me one for the slow build.
1) BNN is a news aggregator, not a content generator. Like I said on the Twitter tubes, big whoop.
2) Someone at BNN obviously takes the time to manually add blogs to its roll. That someone could take the wee extra time to find out whether a blog is copyrighted or syndicated through Creative Commons. Mine is listed as fair use under Creative Commons, but I still find fuzzy the territory in which my content is placed next to an ad.
I’ll talk to my IP law buddies about this.
3) There are a number of lefty NOLA blogs on there. Have all of these blogs given their consent? Some may not care. To be liked also requires full disclosure. Perhaps a courtesy note stating “Your blog will be featured on BNN. If you don’t like it up there, we’ll take it down” would foster all kinds of goodwill. What if you just don’t want your blog and name associated with a certain concern? I believe that we as bloggers ought to be able to reserve that right.
4) They don’t have Dangerblond’s, Karen Gadbois’s or my blogs listed on there. So, there is some picking and choosing going on. Not important, just an observation.
I really appreciate this post and all the actual facts in it.
Your item number seven is a little off and I didn’t want to leave room for misunderstanding.
We DO refuse to remove blogs from the state-wide public affairs aggregators (cities and topics are opt-in or opt-out at will), but the state-wide public affairs sites are intended as “news” — to tell readers what is happening across the state’s public affairs blogosphere … and since public affairs bloggers are trying to have affect the news and public policy, there is a much stronger 1st Amendment presumption that aggregating them is legal and ethical. You can’t opt-out of being “covered” by independent media.
Again, thanks for the points you made.
Maitri,
With very few limits, we’re happy to promote the work of any NOLA bloggers that want to be included. All people have to do is send an email to editor@blognetnews.com, talk to Greta Perry at KissMyGumbo.com or fill out the form at http://www.blognetnews.com/new_orleansla/join.php
The state public affairs sites are more selective and focused on state and local news and politics blogs, but we’re happy to look at any blogs that want to join that.
Well, I didn’t know I was on it until NOLA told me about it. I don’t go there, because my computer time is scheduled by little demons.
The only time I have a problem is when someone takes my entire blog post and puts their name on it. It has happened. As long as you give me credit I am coolio. I ain’t making money off my blog, because I can’t.
the “local editor” for New Orleans is Greta “Kiss My Gumbo” Perry. She’s a northshore military wife, so it’s no surprise that she won’t list you dirty fukkin’ hippie types. of course she lists me, even though I’ve posted more than once mocking her.
Maitri, I agree that this is a wicked fuzzy area in terms of IP. I’d be interested to see what an expert thinks on this.
I’m indifferent to the whole thing. I’m not on their blog roll but if they wanted to put me on I’d still be indifferent…
YatPundit -you are totally out of line and just lost any respect I had for you – and yes, I read you off BNN. I believe a public apology is in order for that nasty comment. And for the record, I never will and never have blasted another blogger such as yourself. Obviously, you need to get the hair out of your ass.
I have never received a dime from BNN and I have sent many e-mails and spent many hours getting together a blogroll for New Orleans and Louisiana (they are listed in 2 areas). I have never left anyone out. I may have missed someone by accident, but not because of what they write. If you know someone who wants to be removed or added, I can
do that.
BTW – I only do it because I think it is a great service and makes my life easier.
To follow up on IP implications, my blog is shared under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license, where Noncommercial means “You may not use this work for commercial purposes.” Is placing an ad by my post a violation of that license? It’s an interesting question.
That’s why I also have a Share-Alike clause attached to my license: ” If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.” Which bring us to the next point.
Also found this in the About section of BNN: “We are going to use your feeds and the feeds of top bloggers from your online community to create new content and information that will organize this slice of the Internet making it work better for bloggers and their readers.”
Using someone else’s content to make new content and information? How does that work? Run that by me one more time. This isn’t an ideological issue, but a problem that I have with this new trend in web marketing. It’s the same old stuff and someone else’s, but it’s hot and new and OMG!
What are the copyright implications of having your content in aggregate form on BNN or any other aggregator? Is this new content then theirs by virtue of it having another frame slapped on it?
I highly recommend that everyone bone up on their Creative Commons rules, and get a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 Generic license tacked onto their blogs.
btw – if anyone cared to check (hahem) – you would know that Dangerblond is on there
Oh, when I ran an Edit–>Find on the page, Dangerblond didn’t come up. Intereseting.
Maitri,
I think that is because Dangerblond.org is listed in the Louisiana section and not in the NOLA section.
Yat Pundit is entitled to his opinion, Greta. I share some of Maitri’s concerns so I shan’t be “signing up” any time soon.
Your site is already listed – I will gladly remove it if you wish.
I don’t mind being listed or not listed. It’s no big deal to me.
Maitri, if the local editors are not getting paid by BNN, there’s a level of deniability at work should someone try to enforce a non-commercial CC license. BNN can say, “oops, so sorry, that was an error by a volunteer.”
Make no mistake, though, as soon as they hang their own ad next to your content, your words are being used commercially, and they’re not following the terms of the CC license.
YatPundit,
Here is what Creative Commons has to say about the CC license and fair use: “Thus we use our licenses to build the freedoms authors want upon a reinforced layer of “fair use” freedoms. Creative Commons is thus “fairuse”-plus: a promise that any freedoms given are always in addition to the freedoms guaranteed by the law.” at http://creativecommons.org/weblog/entry/5681
Mr. Mastio, you are so far off the mark it’s almost humorous. Wholesale copying of another’s writing is not “fair use.” That’s the sort of behavior that gets kids kicked out of school, reporters fired, and corporations sued. In that link, Lessig cites three “uses” of copyrighted works, and what BNN does is #2, “republishing.” Creative Commons gives others the right to “republish,” but if the owner only grants the license for non-commercial use, you violate the CC license as soon as you hang your ads next to that content.
Yatpundit,
I’ll just give our kind host the last word: I did more than I suspect many bloggers bashing BNN have done: “I talked to an IP attorney about BNN, and I even had her look at the BNN-NO site. She did not do a full review of the legal issue, but her cursory review suggests that there are no violations occurring; that it falls under the fair use exception and buttressed further by a court-created exception relating to items of news. Bottom line, unless you have actually talked to an IP lawyer and have been explained this extremely murky area of sophisticated law, don’t spout the law. If you are an IP attorney, or you play one on TV, please feel free to clarify this point for us.”
I’m a lawyer, not an expert in intellectual property, so you can take what I have to say with a grain of salt. BNN is not “stealing” copyrighted material because the original source is credited and there is a link to the original material. BNN drives traffic to the author’s site, just like any other portal aggregator. Also, the original material is not being altered in any way, so there is no need to seek permission to publicize, creative commons license notwithstanding.
Think of BNN as a news reporter. Once the content is published, it is out in the public domain. BNN reports the content’s location with a short blurb to entice reader interest. That is all. It does not promote the content as its own.
Do national newspapers/magazines violate copyright laws when critic reviews reprint lines from movies, book passages, or television programs? No. The original source is credited. And yet, newspapers/magazines sell advertising on the pages used to promote such content. Obviously, this type of reporting is allowed under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution or it would have been stopped long ago.
The service BNN provides to readers is unique and allows it to set up its portal in any manner it sees fit – including generation of revenue.
What bothers me is that some bloggers cannot see the value of this type of service for their own blogs: increased traffic can and often does translate into increased revenue.
ah, yes, cut and run. cya!
Thou shall not speak ill of the “Princess of Positive” – Greta Perry of Kiss My Gumbo. She has worked diligently to make New Orleans actually sound appealing to us who don’t live near there any more. She has promoted bloggers, businesses, people and all the charm that is New Orleans, mostly without any recognition or thanks. I read her blogs regularly and know she has more character and heart than any of you give her credit for. Whenever she is asked, she is willing to help and always with cheer and class. Shame on some of you. You don’t realize what a good thing you have in this lady. Where’s your southern manners and respect, y’all?
Thanks to the author of this post for keeping it fair and honest.
Signed,
CB, a princess of positive apprentice
In a hurry and not yet having read all the comments I will just say I am happy to have been listed and BNN is listed on my blog roll. Like you, I have found several interesting, creative NoLA blogs through BNN.
Of course, I’m not all terribly serious and stuff about my blog as I know others are. I didn’t even realize there was a brouhaha going on. Not in the know, I guess.
I’ll depend on you for that, sweet Nola!
Just thought I’d drop in and say I’m not touching any of this with a 40-foot pole.
But, of course I won’t, and my two cents are with Lights at comment 20. BNN, it would be nice if you asked first, although I think it is sufficient that you remove someone when they ask.
People: If you’re unconvinced, or have some grandiose sense of self-worth that is deeply offended by having the inane ramblings (I include my own) that you posted in a public forum “stolen,” then learn how to turn off the RSS feed in your blog.
I’m going to get a little techie here, but I think Yat Pundit and some others can keep up. AND, if you’re not willing to learn how all this works you give up some of your right to complain about it not working as you would like it to work.
Wordpress users, go to “Options,” hit “Reading,” and under “Syndication Feeds” set “Show the most recent:” to the number zero (default is ten). Then hit the “Update Options” button.
If you’re really concerned, go to your theme editor and find and remove the code that places the RSS button in your templates.
If you are really convinced that your writings are worth something, be they entertaining fiction, or how-to guides, or recipes, tour guides, history lessons, reviews, or insight into the excruciating minutia of your everyday lives, then look into password-protecting your site. And sell subscriptions. Then people would have to pay to look. If you’re thinking, “Oh, no one would pay to look at my blog,” then why do you assume someone is making money off of posting your headlines?
Of course, none of this will prevent someone from copying and pasting your posts at will. After all, it is a public medium.
Remember, you choose to blog, and as the default first post in a new Wordpress install says, it’s “Hello, World!”
It is argued that BNN keeps traffic from your site.
LOL! Do these people not publish RSS feeds? Really, this is no different from a feed reader, so what’s the problem? Good grief, if you think it takes traffic from your site, PUBLISH PARTIAL FEEDS. Anyone reading your stuff on Google Reader, Bloglines, whatever, is doing the same thing–reading your full posts. Duh! Welcome to the internets!
To YatPundit: You’re a freaking idiot. Change your feed to partial or quit publishing RSS feeds and STFU. Also, screw you and your “Northshore military wife” BS; Greta is no partisan wingnut, and she’s one of THE most fair-minded people I know. As a matter of fact, on another blog of hers, she had a hardcore liberal who posted there until recently, as well as a more centrist liberal (who’s a military wife, at that). Typical moonbat identity crap, ASSuming everything about complete strangers based on superficial labels. Sounds to me like you have a chip on your shoulder that’s swallowed your brain.
You fail. At life.
Ok, I’ve read the comments. My suggestions:
If your blog is on BNN and you want it off, for whatever reason, email them.
If your blog isn’t on BNN and you want it on, email them.
If your blog isn’t on BNN and you don’t want it on BNN, what’s the problem? I mean, really.
All of your infringement concerns are moot points if you don’t want to be on it anyway. Some bloggers are happy to be listed and are happy to find blogs they never knew existed through this service. It’s a service. Take it or leave it. Be on it or not.
The world is not flat.
Once the content is published, it is out in the public domain.
how do you figure this? Are you saying that, when an author publishes a novel, it’s in the public domain?
Well, I’m just loving this healthy debate going on! I’ll just sit back and sip my tea, while Nola stirs up all the trouble!
Hey, I’m linked there! Weird.
And far too lazy to read the controversy, though I’m sure that I’m right and they’re wrong. Not sure of the topic, but my right-ness is not to be questioned.
Are you saying that, when an author publishes a novel, it’s in the public domain?
Umm. Yes. I buy a novel. I share it with 15 people who NEVER pay for it. I capture quotes out of this book and reuse them in common speech. And entire book club discusses the content at a monthly meeting. I write a review on the Internet and publish it (with an RSS Feed). I shared it with a teacher who has her entire classroom writes essays about this book. I may swap the book at a local flea market for another book. The flea market sells it again and they make money off of it. And so on… The original author? They get part of the $7.99 paperback price I paid originally.
[DISCLAIMER: I'm not a lawyer.]
Ditto Charlotte in #26.
“Public Domain” is a term of art, a legal term that has a specific definition in the law. It’s not what Conservative Belle describes. Even so, from first glance, all the activities she describes are not copyright violations.
See law.com’s definition at http://dictionary.law.com/default2.asp?typed=public+domain&type=1. Of course, copyright is federal law, so that definition is only as good as the latest Supreme Court case on the matter. But essentially, something is in the “public domain” if it WAS copyrighted, but the legal protection has expired, or if the author or creator puts it in the public domain in the first place by not claiming the legal protection of the copyright when creating it. So. if you do not claim copyright on your blog, it is in the public domain. If you do reserve copyrights (all or just select ones), then your work is not in the public domain yet.
I am not an IP lawyer, I do not play one on TV, but I did take a cool seminar in law school. However, I had not heard of the internet at that time…
NOLA, did you know you were stirring up things quite this much???
I have no idea what anyone is talking about. I had no clue BNN was even around, am not listed, and am totally fine with that. I am sure most people don’t care about what I blog about and I blog for mainly myself as it is. Yes it is all about ME!
Actually some NOLA blogs are too political, to ranty, to bitchy to something. I stopped reading a lot of NOLA blogs awhile ago because they were depressing the hell out of me and really who needs that? (the only blog I read from before is Ray’s) I am so glad that I found NOLA, Pete, and Goodbye to Romance, because all of them blog about things I want to read about….I have learned new things on these blogs that interest me. I have enjoyed meeting them. On BNN I could potentially find more Blogs I want to read.
I have realized while others love something, there are that many that are opposed to it. Narrow mindness is a going to rear it’s ugly head in every situation, the unablity to actually LISTEN to anothers views is not going to happen. I have been known to do that. I am trying to let things like this just GO, because in the long run of life, is this what is really important?
Let’s get something straight: I have no beef with Greta, or the service she provides. In fact, I laud her efforts at keeping NOLA in the public consciousness by forwarding the posts of NOLA bloggers far and wide. My concern is with BNN’s methods of aggregating posts without simple courtesy emails to authors and pulling direct content into an aggregator and referring to it as new content.
BNN is not “stealing” copyrighted material
That’s not the point. Again, the point, at least in my eyes, is that in the About section, BNN refers to this as new content. BNN’s new glorified feedreader and its technologies may be new and patentable, but nowhere in there is new content. I’m not comfortable with this being called new content when it clearly is not.
Think of BNN as a news reporter. Once the content is published, it is out in the public domain.
No, in fact, once content is published with your name on it, it’s in copyright (which, in America, is life of the author plus seventy years. Yes, LIFE + 70, isn’t that obscene?). You can seek legal damages once you register that material, but it is still very much in copyright.
BNN is not a news reporter, they’re an aggregator. Reporters quote specific sentences, within established limits, to make a new story and that new content is copyrightable, with appropriate citations, credit, etc. To that end, I want an assurance from BNN that they’re not going to slap a new copyright on this material.
Call an aggregator an aggregator, not some hot new thing, and ask permission before you put blogs on there. It builds goodwill, especially in a struggling community like ours. That’s all I’m saying.
I am trying to let things like this just GO, because in the long run of life, is this what is really important?
The moral of the story: The end should not justify the means.
Again, I don’t understand why someone who’s not even on the list is so concerned.
Smells of control issues to me.
[...] Well, it turns out BlogNetNews really is trying to run an honorable site. “It is alleged that BNN does not link back to your blog. This is, bluntly, FALSE. It does link back. If you click on the title of your post, it redirects to your site. If you click on the name of your blog, it brings you to another BNN page that shows blurbs of your blog’s most current posts. Click on one and it takes you to your blog.” – Nolanotes [...]