Rich Mogull has been writing a bit about his disagreement with a the SecurityRatty site posting his content (original posts here and here). These posts have set off a rash of comments and other articles on both sides of this issue. Finally Rich wrote his defining post on this topic here. Rich's position is that he owns his words. Ratty took them without his permission, ads nothing to the conversation or commentary at all and actually hosts the content rather than just linking to it. Now for those who don't know, SecurityRatty is a site allegedly owned and operated by some Russian CISSP dude. Basically, they claim they are an RSS aggregator and they just republish blog posts in their entirety. A couple of things to note though:

1. SecurityRatty does not usually add any content of their own or edit the posts in any way
2. They link back to the blogs or articles which are aggregated
3. They do appear to sell some advertising on the site
4. You can search their aggregated content on their site
5. At least recently they are removing content and feeds from their site if you request it.
6. They did not ask anyones permission that I know of before posting content

OK, now that the groundwork is laid, let me give my Shimel view on this. I disagree with Rich. Hey it is a big world and I think there is room for a dissenting opinion here. The reasons I disagree with Rich are:

1. Though Ratty plainly posts up others content, he does not hold it out as his own. He plainly gives credit to those who actually created the words and in fact links back to their sites.
2. Rich is publishing his data under a creative commons license, I am not sure if the meager ad on Ratty would qualify this as a commercial site.
3. Rich distinguishes what Ratty does from Google and other search engines (who clearly profit from Rich's content) by the fact that they just point to it. Not all together true. They also keep a cached copy of the content that you can go to as well.
4. The fact is that I have a tough time seeing any harm to Rich here. In fact if Ratty were not pointing back to Rich's site, if he did not make it as easy to see that it is just an aggregate feed or if Ratty were adding his own comments and not clearly delineating his from Rich's, I would feel differently. Some of this is directly in contrast to Rich who says that if Ratty did add his own views to Rich's, that would make it right by him.
5. Finally, I would go even further than Rich not being harmed by Ratty. I think Rich actually benefits from Ratty. It is yet another outlet for Rich's content and though not everyone reading it at Ratty may go back to Rich's site, they do know it is him and can go back easily. In fact if Rich did advertise at his site, I could understand him losing hits at his site. Otherwise if Ratty just pointed back, one could say the more hits Ratty generates, it could cost Rich more money. Much like people who link to graphics hosted elsewhere.

So, Rich I see that Ratty has stopped aggregating your content so that should be enough of a victory for you. In the long run though I think it is a Pyrrhic victory and you would have been better off with Ratty publicizing your words.