I have just become aware of this issue and posted a few links today on Twitter about the topic ( @nilminiklur ).

I read the article and I thought the most important point was made at the end:

“Discovery of information is a form of intellectual labor,” Popova told the Carr. “When we don’t honor discovery, we are robbing somebody’s time and labor.”
I think the first thing to note is that the internet cannot violate the Constitution of the United States, or applicable Federal and State laws and second, because of this “new” and evolving technology, internet laws have been developed and are continuing to do so in response to this rapid growth.

Given that I have not read a comprehensive number of articles on the issue, what I find most interesting about the issues of Aggregation and Curating is that I am not consistently hearing topics such as “plagiarize,” “copyright,” “free speech,” “trademark,” “tradename,” etc.
“Theft” is a criminal act defined by each state but I don’t think it is technically the correct “crime” we are talking about here, but I think these other concepts, among others involving written and spoken language, are more applicable.
Even if one does not file an official copyright, people own what they write and publish. Not to give credit to the original source I think is a violation of copyright laws and should be treated as such.
Social Media needs to make crediting the various sources, in particular the original source, a realistic possibility in some manner, even if it is another method that is not included in, for example, the 140 word limit on Twitter.
I think the idea of a “blogging police” is an absurd argument.  We deal with these same issues in criminal cases and civil cases.  When someone observes or are themselves the target of curation or aggregation without being given credit, then that person reports it in a manner that I think should not be a mere “Curator’s Code” but one for which the Federal Government should actually create statutory standards.
One question that I have raised more than once in my Twitter posts is why bloggers and article writers make it so difficult to figure out their Twitter name so that I can give them credit for posting something that they or their site created or wrote.

@ Nilmini Klur and @ Susan Bodiker — Good observations.

What about a tweet?  Is aggregating a tweet that points to the original content a problem or a solution to using/abusing contextual information?

Aggregated and curated content that points to the original article should be OK, say when discussing such content, the use of the title and the link could/should be used.  Any other content, you should ask permission.

But then, think on this – reporters ask people questions, then they print those answers however they want them to sound. Not always how they were intended to be used.  SO, using pieces of content and commenting on those as the very same basis for spinning articles off other articles, giving an argument in between opposing comments from different sources would be the same thing, yes or no? IF credit is  given to the speaker with a link, why does the spinner of content need to ask permission?

Don’t get riled up here – just questions that the folks on those panels may be discussing. How many bloggers are there?  I think, it said NONE.  Journalists yes, bloggers no.  How fair is THAT?

This is a very interesting topic, and one where discussion should be on-topic and respectful.  I don’t see why anyone should get riled up about the topic – it needs to be addressed, and as far as I’m concerned, as with other legal and ethical issues, we all just need to engage in a productive debate that will produce the best results we can at this time and the results will be changed as time passes to account for what works, what doesn’t work, what needs to be added or removed because the subject matter itself had changed, etc.

As we discuss this issue, we need to all remember that some of the problems created are due to something never before experienced in human history – the exponential growth of knowledge, doubling, tripling, quadrupling at rates heretofore unthinkable.

As to the point you raise about reporters and spin, both public figures and private individuals have legal recourse under the very limited exceptions to the First Amendment Right to Free Speech, and via other privacy-based torts (e.g., false light).  And I think writers of any type of original content should have the same legal recourse.  

And, I think Curators and Aggregators should also have rights; after all, they are the ones that also contribute to the database of knowledge by putting in efforts to seek out various types of information and make that knowledge available to others who don’t have the time to do so themselves.  

I think your comment very acutely raises the question of whether the “Original Source” is actually credited.  The problem arises in particular when the degrees of separation are so far apart from the original source (e.g., due to multiple curations, aggregations, retweets. etc), that the origination point is no longer credited or no longer can be identified.  

Also, with regard to written material in specific and to spoken materials (e.g., speeches), we are all well aware that various professions and even non-professionals (e.g., college students) have standards for citing their source material within the content of their own document and failure to do so is considered plagiarism. Why should the standard be less for the internet?  In fact, I think the issue is arising now for the very reason that Social Media Marketing has become a “profession” and like other professions, most notably law, there needs to be rules of professional conduct and laws, rules, ethical guidelines, etc. that govern this “new” profession.

Years ago, as the internet started to really take off, and, as usual, the law lagged behind the rapidly changing ephemeral web, there was a huge debate about the “Web Police.”  Internet laws were made and the outcry about the internet police has turned out to be a nonissue.  Internet Law is still a growing field, and with the creation of a new profession within a vastly different inchoate form, the time has come to do what we have always done with professions and the subject matter of those professions.

Just as the Industrial Revolution vastly changed our culture and new laws and standards that are now just matter-of-fact to us were created to address the unforeseeable consequences of the Industrial Revolution.  Web 2.0 is another revolution that needs to be addressed in the same way.  That’s the nature of history, culture, people, economics, and the law.

Hello Ladies >>> @ Nilmini Klur @ Susan Bodiker @ Joan Muschamp (Fagnani) @ Kristi Hines — well thought out replies and opinions. 

You know, when blogging first started out (there is actually a very long history, before the web; on usenet and the old bulletin board dial-up platforms, etc. that existed on the Internet) blogs were more like personal diaries or journals. People kept track of what was happening in their lives, online.  Then, politics (primarily but not solely) entered for about the first half of the new millennium. Starting around 2004 or 2005 blogs became a source of advice, instructional ‘how to’ articles, medical issues, and news, big and small. I am truly surprised that some regulation has not been put in place before now.

One of the main things about today’s blogging community is the fight for exposure.  Whatever everyone is looking to learn about; is what everyone is writing about or is going to write about. Much of that is the same stuff. You can reword the same instructions or advice in many different ways but in the end it says the same thing. How many different ways can you say the same thing and have it be considered original content?

At this point I believe aggregation guidelines would be a good thing to have and/or, as the article states, a symbol “stamp” indicating that the content or subject matter has already been written about the current article is a slant on that content. BUT, I still think a link and credit is necessary.

I can see different news source types defining and expecting different things from bloggers online.  But who made the big newspapers or journalists the BIG Chiefs on this issue?  Many of the big news sources have already gone to ‘subscribe (pay) to read’ platforms so how is it fair for them even to have a stake in what the free content bloggers are writing, or other platforms aggregating and/or curating?

I still have big questions in my mind about the whole scenario as it has been presented.  I suppose we’ll just have to wait and see what happens, eh?

@Nilmini Klur 
That’s a great article and a ( I tweeted it too ) good addition to this conversation.  :D