(I edited it for you. Thanks James! -Bryan)

If you use WordPress, present a full-content feed to your readers, but desire to provide some ownership and/or copyright information with your feed, then try Angsuman’s Feed Copyrighter plugin.

Sorry all of you had to go through this.

What has this discussion got to do with NYT having a page of feeds? Nothing. I repeat it’s_not_about_big_companies. You’ve missed the point, now stop acting like a troll (p.s. you’ve never met me)

Nice discussion Bryan, but it’s over as far as I’m concerned now. Not worth it when people like this appear.

As far as the NY Times I assure you they would start with both a website, and print media if they had started their newspaper in… 1994… And not 1851…

The NY Times has a entire page of RSS feeds: http://www.nytimes.com/services/xml/rss/index.html

But if you would like to act like continue your childish antics I could always point you in the direction of C|Net amoung other places.

Your logic is… Pitiful at the very best…

I highly doubt if I really cared and started to copy your blog entires with out giving credit and calling it my own you would be pissed. If not… Well if not you are about the most easy going person I have ever met, but of course this isn’t the case.

The discussion has nothing to do with huge companies.

Why don’t you go tell Yahoo, The New York Times, and any other of many many huge companies that they should go to paper print only to avoid copyright infringement?

What?
No?
Why?
Because that would be ridiculuos?
Bingo!

Oh and the fact they would sue the hell out of you I bet helps too.

One of the most exciting technology ‘blogs’ this year is Engadget. Why aren’t they locking down their feeds to summary? Chasing and suing the ass of anybody and everybody that reproduces their work? Maybe it’s because they are spending that energy on building a good resource and community.

If you’re that worried about copyright and people reproducing works, then unplug from the internet and go to print publishing. Because that’s the only way you’ll get what you want.

Pagerank, Copyright, hard-work…bleh…it’s about your readers and what you have to say to them first and foremost. Don’t make that difficult.

RSS hijackers are using Jon’s feeds to make money without doing virtually any work at all where as jon is writing each post long hand.

Yes they could come to his site and copy and paste his posts – but that would be a lot longer process and whilst it still breaks copyright at least it would be some work for them which should limit the amount of copy they can steal.

I would love to offer my feeds fully – but I’m sick of blood sucking thieves stealing my posts and putting up their own versions which not only make them money without any credit to who wrote it but who create duplicate versions of my content which risks me losing page ranking in Google who frowns upon duplicated versions of content.

Why is that a good reason to switch to summary? So a few sites are aggregating the full feed…it’s called reblogging or a link blog. The biggest profile person to do that is Robert Scoble, So should everybody listed there switch to summary to throw a spanner in the works? You can’t protect your content like that, otherwise you may as well implement registration. It only takes a few lines of script to scrape a site anyway.

My whole point is to focus on what’s important – the visitors – and summary feeds do not do a great job. And that’s the whole point of my orginal post – if you’re going to insist on doing it – make them want to come and read the full text.