As to obfuscating facts, feel free to give me some facts I’m obfuscating that are relevant to the legal and ethical discussion we are having about the appropriation of content. I’m being pretty explicit about what we’re doing, so if you want more details about something you’ll have to ask I suppose, but I don’t think anything will blow your mind or turn the tide in my argument’s disfavor.

You think that because the authors of the works are not directly involved in the posting process that it is only pretending to be ‘a viable source of information and discourse’. So do you think the same about sites like Digg and Slashdot? How about Metafilter or BoingBoing? Those are all popular communities that are well regarded despite the fact that they primarily link to outside stories without permission. It’s the same weird argument over and over, we’re “hanging our hats” and as a result somehow hurting the authors who’s work we are promoting. Show me a way we are hurting them, I dare you.

The fact that the linking is partially automated and shows a content sample rather than a 3rd party summary doesn’t mean that the author somehow loses revenue or has their work stolen, the full text is only viewable on their site where they can show ads and control the message. All we are doing is making the links available in an organized way based on a specific topic.

That is what makes the web powerful and popular, any site can link to another site when more information is required. When you place your content on the public internet (as opposed to behind a paywall or other security) you invite links to your content as a resource, and generally speaking you cherish links because they bring interested people and potential revenue sources. I think pretty much everyone linked to by VwV and GlobalVoices is glad to have the attention as is usual in the world of blogging.

I also have to say that as the site in question has been “commisioned” by Reuters and given what the term “commisioned” means, that Reuters paid and/or compensated you to create something for their usage and or profit..

You need to address what that means, because it’s clear that something Reuters commisions isn’t something grassroots inspired.. and frankly a sham.