Posts tagged as: harvard

Darwin lecture at Harvard Divinity School

I work hard at keeping on topic, but since Darwin is the inspiration for this blog, I can't resist pointing to a lecture on "Darwin and God" at Harvard's Divinity School on February 9th. It isn't commonly known, but Harvard lectures are usually open to the public, as this one is. If you're a fan of Darwin and are in the area, you should try to make this event. Besides, the Divinity School is a fascinating place. There are Buddhist monks and Franciscan friars in their robes, and other religious garbs on display. Without meaning to be disrespectful, it's like the space bar scene in Star Wars.

The RSS/TTS debate takes an interesting turn

The Tech Memeorandum archive reveals an interesting progression from Tuesday night to Wednesday There was a shift in tone from "You're stealing my content"/"No, I'm not", to "That's not the right way to use my content"/"OK, maybe there is a better way" 24 hours later. One reason why much of the heat has dissipated, and the battle has morphed into a search for a middle ground may be that women have entered the discussion. While this started with the men riding out to shoot up the cattle rustlers, the womenfolk are now asking questions and looking for answers.

Is this sexist generalization? Perhaps, but based on the two Tech Memorandum snapshots I'd much rather read a discussion dominated by Shelley Powers, Susan Mernit, Denise Howell and Jeneane Sessum, than Mike Rundle and Om Malik. No offense meant guys.

As long as I've got myself down in this gender-biased pit, I also find it amusing to see how the two "sides?" "teams?" (OK boy, stop digging) reacted to the H-Bomb. Om folded the minute Palfrey arrived:

But Shelley brushed Harvard aside and got straight to the heart of the matter: You go girl!

John Palfrey explains the issues of RSS copyright

John Palfrey has responded to the questioning of Top10Sources' use of RSS feeds exactly the way a law professor should, by turning it into an opportunity to educate the blogosphere on the finer points of copyright law in relation to RSS and blogs. As the Executive Director of the Berkman Center for Internet and Society, he explores the potential risks to the Internet from overly restrictive limits on the use of RSS feeds by aggregators. The Berkman Center currently holds the copyright for the RSS 2.0 specification, and Palfrey handles this responsibility by explaining the best way for RSS to fulfill its potential. Finally, as a founding partner of the RSS Investors LP venture fund and the founder of Top10Sources, Palfrey protects his investment by skillfully deflecting the criticisms levelled against the new aggregation site. He sure is in the middle of RSS, isn't he? Let's take a look at some of his arguments, since they are a blueprint of where RSS and copyright law intersect.

Palfrey contends that aggregators like Top10Sources are not violating copyright law, but acknowledges that this is still an unresolved issue. What I find interesting is the way he casts the opponents of his view:

I can't judge the legal argument, but I respect his tactics. I don't think there is a single blogger who wants to be on the same side as the RIAA or MPAA.

He warns his readers of the consequences of the "strong form" of copyright being applied to RSS: Palfrey's most valuable recommendation is that bloggers should add a copyright statement to their feeds. I agree. When examining feeds for inclusion in my aggregator, I was surprised to find that none of them contained a copyright notice. My feed had one, but I've now updated it to match my site's Creative Commons license, which spells out exactly what a republisher is permitted do.

How does Top10Sources carry out Palfrey's less restrictive view of RSS copyright?So the site has adopted an opt-out model for aggregation. Top10Sources notifies the feed owner, and the owner has the responsibility of requesting that a feed be removed. As a practical matter, this is the only way to run an aggregator. As I've mentioned in other posts, my attempts to gain permission from feed owners in advance of launching my RubyRiver aggregator was met with almost a complete lack of response. RSS was built to promote syndication, and an aggregator is a valuable part of that model. Requiring an opt-in model would limit the potential of RSS, and stifle an important avenue for Internet communication. As Palfrey says, "fundamentally, RSS is ads" for the blog and aggregators are a vital channel for these ads.

One question left unanswered by Palfrey's response is the amount of a feed that should be republished, especially in light of the site's opt-out model. He admits that this is an evolving area: This debate over aggregation will certainly continue, but for now I find it fascinating to watch Palfrey navigate the current controversy. From a PR perspective I give him an A. I attended his Harvard Extension School class on cyberlaw a few years ago (which probably accounts for the academic tone I find myself adopting here), and frankly, he is a lot more interesting now that he has to apply his legal theories to a company in which he holds an important stake. I wish all Harvard profs had this real world opportunity. I hope people like Om Malik continue to hold his feet to the fire. The blogosphere will benefit from his involvement.

If you make it a community they will come

I went to the reception for The Symposium on Social Architecture at the Harvard Faculty club last night. The people I met were mostly planning on selling pickaxes and shovels in the Blog gold-rush. The assumption is that companies are going to have to build "community-based" systems around their products, and these people are building the tools to do this. I agree with the basic premise, but the dot-com bust showed that not everyone was able to make money selling infrastructure. There is usually a slower adoption rate by businesses than the bleeding edge predicts. I'll report back tonight on the actual conference sessions.