RSS Reader That Converts RSS into Voice ... Genius and Theft

RSS DJ is a new RSS Reader that can take any RSS feed and automatically convert it to spoken word MP3.

"RSS DJ is a new style of RSS aggregator. It can take any text based RSS feed (blogs, news feeds, anything), and automatically convert them to spoken word MP3 podcasts. You can even create your own "Mixes" combining feeds based on tags, freshness, and peer ratings."

Really an engenius concept, and my hat goes off to the visionaries that created this tool, which I'm sure will find many takers.

But the Reader also comes as a bad sign of where the RSS industry might be heading:

a] It can strip ads from RSS feeds, actually stripping publishers of their income, even though they are providing these RSS feeds as a free service.

Why can't people understand that RSS feeds are meant to be consumed the way they have been published ... if that means with ads, it means with ads.

And if a publisher gives his content away from free, expecting some compensation from his ad space sales, isn't automatically blocking his ads in some way stealing?

End-users always have the choice of subscribing to feeds with ads or no ads, but they shouldn't have a choice of blocking the ads if the publisher decided this is how he wants to support his work.

b] The Reader will also scrap sites without RSS feeds, giving its users the possibility of consuming new content from the site as if they were subscribing to its RSS feed.

Unfortunatelly, although this might be a good end-user application, I can't help but think that this again is some sort of theft, using content in ways the publisher has not intended, and stripping his website ads along the way.

If this becomes a trend, how can internet users expect to keep receiving the content they love for free, if they are at the same time preventing the publisher from getting fair compensation for his work?

In pure essence, it's the same.

In praxis, there are a couple of important differences:

1. Much online content is generated by small independant publishers with almost no sources of income.

2. The actual "reading" experience is different. Reading RSS feeds is linear. Watching TV is complex (for lack of a better word in my English vocabulary).

But you've opened an interesting issue, I admit.

In essence, taking away the publisher's source of income, if you get free content in return, is bad no matter what consumption channel it happens on.

However, my personal instinct tells me that it's worse when that happens to small publishers online.

So certainly not a black-white question.

And I'm usually not the one to discuss morals in business. But this, it just feels wrong all the way.

Posted by: Rok Hrastnik at November 29, 2005 10:05 AM

Well, wether it's right or it's wrong. Simple implying that a large publisher can "absorb" some who use their content in an "unintended" fashion is OK but small publisher can't continue to publish their content so we should play nice with them doesn't sound like sound logic to me.

If you have something that sustainable, let it be sustainable. If it's not, let it go or do it for the joy of doing it.

Posted by: Woody at November 29, 2005 10:23 PM

What about people using this kind of stuff just because they do have eye problem (or are blind) and can't read easily article in web page... I know some people in this situation, and such tools are a great help for them...

Not everyone want to act like thief or prevent ads to show up;)

So it can also be seen as a way to have a bigger audience

The question is why people post? Do they post to be read (or listen) or just to get money from advertising? My guess it that many many blogger post to be read first, and if they do get some money from this, then fine... So i'm not sure that thoses technologies are so "evil" ;)

Posted by: Olivier Ruffin at November 30, 2005 12:42 PM

Hello Rok,

Just a quick note for future reference: the expression "my hat goes off" is the correct way to say you congratulate "the visionaries" for their clever work. ;) Tipping your hat (removing it) is a kind gesture to give to someone. That is why the hat goes "off" not "down."

Just thought you'd like to know.

Keep up the interesting work. I enjoy reading your articles...and I enjoyed reading your book. My hat goes off to you for your own visionary work. :)

Posted by: Jefferson Hennessy at November 30, 2005 6:36 PM

Hi - I am the creator and developer of RSS DJ. I invite everyone to read the RSS DJ blog at http://blog.rssdj.com/ for more information and an explanation about where RSS DJ is coming from and how it got to where it is (and even where it's going). I greatly appreciate all the discussion about the 'morality' of what it does, but I'd like to assure everyone that it was not done to deprive content providers of revenue or to be 'evil' in any way. It was really built as an an initial experiment that I decided to put online and see how it is responded to. I'd like to believe that RSS DJ provides a great service for people who are too busy to read full RSS articles and who don't have access to a laptop or web browser all the time, but do have an iPod or other MP3 player more frequently than not. The goal is to be able to get your RSS news without a PC - and to get FROM your RSS feeds what YOU want from them - not what is necessarily given to you. I invite comment and criticism all the same on the RSS DJ blog and via email. With all new technologies there will be some disruption and some criticism. I'd much rather participate than snub my nose at anyone. Thanks for your time.

-- Alan

Posted by: Alan at December 1, 2005 4:28 AM

Without diving into the "morality" of the issue brought up by Rok in his original commentary, I think it's important to realize that the vast majority of users won't strip ads, for a variety of different behavioral reasons.

I agree with you Rok in that this is a sign of where RSS is heading. The direction is towards mass acceptance, use and convenience, something I think is reflected in Alan's new reader (and all of your dillegent efforts and writings).

With the continued maturity of RSS and its marketing applications, we can expect to see more creations like Alan's. My hope is that developers reflect the concern and interest in participation for the betterment of RSS marketing as Alan does in his posting.

Thanks,

Brian

Posted by: Brian Offenberger at December 1, 2005 10:32 PM

I'm not really seeing the problem here. So, if you cite a source, are you responsible for rebroadcasting that source's web page ads? What if you cite something from TV? Should you attach their ads as video files? What about radio?

I think if the content is packaged as and with something that is significantly different from your original source or feed, (a show, say with more than just your feed)there's no rip off happening here unless you charge a subscription. But as long as your information is in the clear, what's happening here is appropriate. You want to protect something, you have to do one very important thing to make this happen...

protect it.

However, a podcast that is ONLY a reading of one feed ONLY, can only do 2 things if it mentions YOUR feed in it's re-reading...

1. Increase exposure for you.

2. Increase exposure for you.

Oh I guess that's one thing. Well, at least it's worth 2.

Especially if you do not offer the service yourself.

In any other case, this is nitpicking and I might add a bit on the greedy side.

Citing a source of information is one thing(or providing a link back), but expecting that information to carry an advertising PAYLOAD wherever it goes is downright silly. Asking that it carry that payload is one thing, demanding it is another. It is my hope that demand is met with disobedience. It is also my hope that if you ask, they will consider giving you what you want.

Posted by: ilk at December 15, 2005 2:56 AM

PYBUwy A number of universities have awarded her honorary degrees, and she earned a prestigious job on the staff of Detroit congressman John Conyers. In 1988 Roxanne Brown noted: "Thirty-two years after she attracted international attention for sparking the Montgomery Bus Boycott, Mrs. Parks's ardent devotion to human rights still burns brightly, like a well-tended torch that ignites her spirit and calls her to service whenever she is needed."

Posted by: Elizabeth Talor at July 25, 2007 11:58 PM