War of SEOBlipa
Half a year ago, encouraged by the possibilities of microblogging service API Blip.pl created a service that was to aggregate the statuses of people watching a special account-bot and make them search engine friendly links. Service was a huge success (as of today SEOblip'a account takes 34 ranking in top 100 ), even though nearly three months does not work ...
I must admit that I did not expect such an interest in this tool. When he was creating SEO tag on Twitter observed around 20-30 people and I thought that only those people will be interested in it. However SEOblipa popularity grew faster than the popular tags # SEO or # positioning.
In a word, he made a buzz , and my script to update the data could slightly burden the servers Blip. As - at any rate - an active user of the micro-blogging service was also not happy with the frequent problems connecting to the server, so did not object when one day reuptake told me that they have for some time to block the bot.
I fixed the script and changed the update settings, politely waited until the blip will solve other problems overloading servers (unplugging my bot not help) and I sent an email asking you to unlock your IP address.
After several emails and private inquiries to the team Blip for about three months did not get a reply (spychologia used?) And finally a few days ago - 30.10.2009 - received information:
Unfortunately, this and other similar applications do not intend to unlock.
I do not understand the team approach Blip. Could it have been warned to everything that starts with SEO? SEOblip - an application that retrieves only the entries of the user who clearly expressed their desire (by adding a bot account for the observed) is blocked, and blipcast and Twitter - all blipowego of Content aggregators can retrieve records without your permission?
A layout may not have enough SEOblipa web-two-zero?
The only reasonable explanation for this behavior can be found in the regulations, however, Blip. As correctly noted by Bartek Flint - blip appropriates user generated content site , and deprives them of copyright.
In a word - blip does not have to share the content of external applications even if the creator has the will, since it is the only blip the legal owner of that content. On the other hand - even if you do not want your content found on other sites (using the Blip API) - you can not deny, because they are not your content.
Paranoia? This is Poland's. Twitter - an American original blip - allows users to retain copyright on their own.
Jagodzinski is not God and Caesar
The lucky we live in a state of law and a crew of Blip is not the only institution irrevocably committed. In my opinion Blip rules affect the collective interests of consumers, and is eligible for application to the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. (And maybe even the National Labour Inspectorate - if we all work for a Blip 
)
August 18 in that case I sent an email to the OCCP, but still got no response. I suspect that this is the first such application, and officials do not really know what to do about it. And the mail was sent only once - olali matter, because where else here, "the collective interests of consumers", since only one to report?
Suppose blipujesz and you are (or will be) a famous person. As of today - can make their fortunes blip eg print edition of your micro-blog without your permission, and you do not get a dime from this. An interesting perspective? For me, not really ...
So if you share interesting content on Twitter, you feel that you are worth something, or just annoy you exploiting "small users" with "large corporations" (blip to the e-mail SA) - send to the address 
Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am an www.blip.pl site and I feared that this service does not affect the collective interests of consumers (including the and my).
In practical terms, § 7 of the Rules available at http://blip.pl/pages/rules:First User by placing the material on the Website consents to the use of these materials by other users for their personal use.
Second You grant e-mail of their right to free use and dissemination, in particular the right to reproduce, publish, distribute, modify, translate and otherwise use, in any field of exploitation of all materials delivered to the site - even after his resignation or removal of the User Service.
Third Service User is entitled to use the materials on the Site only for personal use. Use of these materials in other areas is not permitted - except on the basis of proper authorization given by an authorized person.In writing this I notice two anomalies:
First Point 2, which provide e-mail SA rights, even after the resignation or removal from site.
Second Razi a lack of copyright users creating the content of the site. As an active member would like to keep my copyright in content provided on this site are retained (I have no intention of handing over the rights for free), as well as I would like to be able to export that content and process in-house.Please answer whether that case is eligible to file a complaint with the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. If so - please treat this letter as an official complain to the SA e-mail if the form in which the defense presented is not sufficient, I can send it via mail.
Sincerely,
[Your name, address, phone and e-mail]
I think that as the office gets several /-dozen such letters, eventually someone will give this answer (if that person please leave a comment here). If you think that the issue is really important - please kick this entry (see link in box below) - let as many people know about it and take action.
At the same time I thank all those who have so far involved in reactivation of SEOblipa by setting the status of # zostawcieseoblipa . I hope that together we have a fight than a tool, and maybe even a blip on the total conversion of more friendly to search engines?
or recommend other social networking sites:
Luke Jarzembowski, author of the blog - since 2006 under the illusion that it will be rich ... ;-) But still working hard on this. Programs , blogging , and positions , creating and promoting their e-businesses . 
Entries similar to the "War of the SEOBlipa"
- No related posts
on November 2, 2009 at 18:08
Hey,
This problem applies to the majority of content sites. He is in the regulations in order to guard against the copying of data by the search engines and other people, bots and private data leakage events. Then the service can respond that he did not guarantee confidentiality, ie, specifically, that implicitly agreed to be publicized, because according to the rules he had such a right. Rozkminiałem it in the discussion of the Rules of another social networking site, which will last from Facebook.
I do not know if you wrote to the OCCP unnecessarily - I mean two things: your motivation, and other law. In terms of motivation, a little bit so it looks as if you wanted to bite off for being ill-treated you, and yet Blip.pl is not a creation of the state, private and can only refuse someone service / maintenance, if it is unusual.
Another issue is the law, namely the Act of 4 February 1994 on Copyright and Related Rights, specifically Article 41, which reads:
Third Provisions of an agreement concerning all works or all works of a particular type by the same author to be produced in the future.
4th The contract may only refer to fields of use, which are known at the time of its conclusion.
So the regulations governing the transfer of rights to copy a work (here's the catch, it must be a song! But as long as no blog entries or czymśtam this track can be created in this "diary"), fall under the Law on Copyright and related laws. She states that a statement is required to express the artist's intentions in relation to a particular song that already exists.
In my opinion this means that provisions in the regulations concerning the granting of rights to dispose of their songs and copy (copyrights) are at this point contrary to law, so in these specific points of law invalid (the Civil Code, which says that points of agreement are void and not the whole contract, if there is some nieprawowitość). It is worth to ask a lawyer, as he sees it, specifically, whether such records certainly fall under the said Act.
on November 2, 2009 at 18:16
Apropos concerns about the processing of their own in-house entries, it may be to sell these rights would require a written agreement transferring copyright subject to exclusive. Without this restriction as an author you still have work smoothly, despite the fact that somebody paid for the work.
on November 2, 2009 at 19:37
For sure I will send a letter to the log of Internet users, I'm also curious about the comments people centrumpr and goldenline matter of desire epiglottis
on November 2, 2009 at 21:05
Office is not from consideration of individual cases. Something that deals with Consumer Federation, so the reaction UOKiKu did not expect.
on November 3, 2009 at 9:05
@ Siefca: thanks for the explanation of certain legal issues
As for my motivation, not so much want to "bite", which ensure that people who have added a bot account for the observed, which ordered that the service will operate.
I know that is not a blip and not a creation of the state had set up an account there, but it irritates me bad records in the regulations (which the authors are aware that no rules do not read). A OCCP is the only organization that I know of to consumers (after all, we are consumers of media).
@ Stef may be the wrong word - thanks UOKIK'u on Twitter want to force a change in regulations, rather than unlocking bot. How to change the rules on benefits for users - will have to unblock the bot (unless it again exploit any loopholes).
on 6 December 2009 at 23:23
no i ^ seoblip canceled
on 8 December 2009 at 14:36
sorry ... it's just a bunch guys, like some kind of api-creature Blip it promotes a load does not bother them as anything more for users to say goodbye ...