TechDirt raises the issue of content republishing, and asks how seriously we ought to take it. The problem is that copyright law and "fair use" were conceived in an era where re-purposing content took a lot more effort than it does now.

The example TechDirt points at is Om Malik's latest on the subject. Now, I don't think Om is being unreasonable, which is why this point made me stop and think:

First of all, it's a very fine line. How different is it from some random site reposting someone's content and an RSS aggregator reposting content. For example, here's Bloglines reposting Om's content, which it's done for years. Should he be upset about that? People say their complaint is that others are making money off of their content -- but that's not a realistic complaint. The NY Times book review makes a ton of money off of other people's content -- by adding value to it and promoting it.

The Times falls into fair use pretty clearly, but sites like Bloglines (and Newsgator online, etc) are a little harder to deal with. I subscribe to my feed in Bloglines (I imported a BottomFeeder export as a test over a year ago), and there it is - full content. Heck, I'm not directly credited, either - I see "Cincom Product Manager" listed, but not my name. Am I upset? heck no, I'm happy that so many people subscribe to my content.

Which is where the difficulty is - what's the difference (legally) between a splog grabbing my content and Bloglines doing it? I see the difference, but it's kind of like the old saw about pornography - "I can't define it, but I know it when I see it" (the late justice Potter Stewart). I can't define online content theft either, but I "know it when I see it".

So where does that leave us? I suspect that we may end up with "fair use" meaning correct attribution and a link back to the original source. I don't see how else to do it.