Well, I can already tell what the headlining post this weekend is going to be on Techmeme (or bitchmeme, a la MG), and its going to probably revolve around Shyftr, a relatively new service in the RSS aggregating category (and lo, since I started writing, it has begun!)

Or, should I say “scraping” category?

No, you’re right — that’s not fair. I know Shyftr has its fans (like Louis Gray, who I respect immensely and is an awesome blogger in his own right)Here’s the cribs notes version as I see them: Shyftr is a new social network that revolves around sharing RSS feeds. Now, what’s so harmless about that, you might add? Surely we have social networks involving all kinds of niches, and aren’t feeds meant to be shared?

Well, there’s sharing, as in “hey, look at this new feed, you should check it out” — and there’s sharing, also known as, “I’m going to scrape and republish a blogger’s an entire feed, so that many people can check it out”.

And in that respect, Shyftr is a lot like Toluu, which allows people to publicly share feeds as well, although the social network aspect of Shyftr is absent (i.e you cannot comment on particular feeds or stories).

Let me be clear: I am making no value judgements against its creators or against its original intent (which may have been to let people have fun in sharing their feeds).

However, in my mind, when a service cannot exist *without* republishing others content in its entirety, and directly profits from that republishing without the original consent of the author, there’s something that isn’t right.

What do I mean by “profit” when none of these services are *actually* making a profit? Well, I am using the term loosely, in that they are deriving the present benefit of *existing*, and the real future benefit of earnings around republishing someone else’s content.

Now the fact that “conversations” are also happening above, around, and beyond the original blogs is interesting, but ultimately a foot note in this conversation; services like Friendfeed also aggregate conversations around blogging topics, but unlike Shyftr and Toluu, don’t host the *entire* feed.

So where am I drawing the line that Shyftr crosses?

Well, I accept the idea that conversations are going to be fractured, and that I don’t *own* them. I would *like* to host them on this blog, but I do realize that conversations have a life of their own (and run wild and free wherever they like) and exist wherever they like because their real owners are those folks who are having them. I only have the privilege of starting them, and participating in them wherever they are.

To bully and force them into being in a certain place (i.e. here) would be profoundly myopic, and as a blogger (i.e. someone who is supposed to understand and navigate these kinds of new media landmines) — heck, I don’t even know the right word. Some combination of “stupid” and “hypocritical”, like a doctor not renewing his own prescriptions for blood pressure medication, a teacher not doing his or her own homework.

(“hypo-stupid?”)

Oh wait, someone’s already demonstrated this recently.

Anyway, its not the conversations being hosted somewhere else that bothers me, its that there are a new crop of services which would not otherwise exist without republishing someone else’s content without the original author’s explicit permission. Well, lots of people’s content. And you can dress it up and all kinds of clothing and all kinds of nifty wrappers, but ultimately that’s what this is about.

And to me, that’s what the line is, and in my mind services like Shyftr (wittingly or unwittingly) cross it.

Now is the problem with RSS feeds? That we don’t understand the explicit rights that are associated with it? Perhaps. This isn’t a new conversation after all (here’s a link from Scoble circa 2005), and let’s be real clear: this topic is probably as old as RSS feeds itself.

I’m no copyright guru, and I don’t pretend to know all the details of what that entails, but what I do know is this: unless and until there is a general consensus about what the rights around RSS feeds are (because my bias is that there is absolutely no implied rights to reproduce carte blanche), I think there is a moral and ethical obligation to obtain content from the content owners about reproducing feeds in their entirety, particularly if its going to be used as part of public service which a) has or will generate profits from a service which is based on those feeds and therefore is a b) service which cannot exist without reproducing (i.e. “copying”) those feeds.

Until they do, they’re a lot like another kind of site or blog which fits that kind of definition.

Content scraper.

{an ugly word, I know}

Update: Eric Berlin, who’s initial Tweets prompted this post chimes in and, amongst other cogent arguments, echoes Mat Ingram’s sentiments: building a business around someone the full reproduction of other’s content doesn’t seem right.