As we’ve already covered Dave’s most recent OPML editor extension’s sole purpose is to rehost the copyrighted material of other people. Unsurprisingly, he does so without permission.
Now, he’s decided to make the ability to steal and re-host other people’s tweets widely available.
If you’re still not sold on the copyright, take a look at this passage from Dave when it was about his content:
The next step is to look at the copyright issues his service raises. They are quite interesting. Scripting News, both in HTML and RSS, has a clear copyright on it. Should I have a say in publications created from my content? I generally don’t mind, but shouldn’t I have to give permission? Suppose a magazine started publishing all my writing. Would I have recourse? I am not a lawyer, but it seems clear that I would. Is Pilgrim somehow immune to copyright law? I’d love to hear the legal theory that allows him to do what he’s doing with my work.
So . . . is Dave “somehow immune to copyright law?”
The dude obviously has Borderline Personality Disorder. There is no pharma solution, only an expert therapist can help Dave. And even then, the odds are slim, as Dave can fund his own society-draining delusions indefinitely without reality interceding on our behalf.
Dave has one rule for himself, and one for everyone else.
But as Dave himself admits, no one uses his software.
This is OPML Editor being talked about. I wouldn’t worry about it being widely used.