Intro Hey assholes!

Yes, agreed, and we've been doing that from the start.

Correct.

No, we are not, and you are clearly misinformed as we will be demonstrating below with actual citations.

Again, wrong. The few court cases that have actually dealt with it have shown that posting items from RSS feed is not copyright infringement. See article:

In precedent, court rules News1’s posting items from RSS feed not copyright infringement.

Again, wrong. Every major Forum software includes an RSS Feeder that pulls RSS content from external sites, so it's not just for the convenience of users, but to actually syndicate content across the internet. The sites that syndicate their content externally benefit by having additional exposure and a link back to the original content on their site (and the SEO benefits that brings with it) since the RSS standard automatically includes the link back to the source for proper attribution. For example, vBulletin -- the world's most popular Forum software which has existed since 2000 -- offers this feature, which you can view on their official site here.

Again, wrong. It's not copying, it's syndicating, and there's a big difference, particularly since the originating site owner has full control over their syndication.

Yes, there actually is, so you are wrong yet again. See this article which literally states that a court has found that Full-Text RSS Feeds create an implied copyright license:

Court Says Full-Text RSS Feeds Create an Implied Copyright License

Again, wrong. RSS literally stands for Really Simple Syndication. It seems you do not understand what syndication is within the context of RSS or that it is an integral part of it, even appearing in its name.

Wrong again on several counts, as already demonstrated above.

Spam suggests bulk messaging. We hand-selected only Top members from the Top gambling forums to receive our special invitations. If we wanted to spam, we would have invited everyone. Instead, we only invited a handful of distinguished members, several of whom joined as they saw value in what we were offering them.

We include a link back to the source in every RSS post that gets automatically syndicated here.

Syndicating your site's content via RSS creates an implied copyright license as we mentioned to Victim above. Furthermore, we source each syndicated post back to the original site so everyone can easily click to immediately see the original.

That's perfectly fine and demonstrates how sites like Casinomeister benefit from the additional exposure created by syndicating their content externally.

Correct, but that doesn't keep members here from discussing whatever topic the original OP brought up.

It's not stealing, it's syndicating, and it all happens automatically on both the origin site and destination site. In other words, the Forum softwares automatically handle both syndicating your content externally and pulling syndicated content from external sources. Since each site owner has full control over their RSS Feeds, they can simply turn them off or limit them if they do not wish for other sites to syndicate their content. In fact, if they don't want this specific site to syndicate their content, they can simply block our the IP address of this server. Presumably, it is due to this full control over their own RSS Feeds that creates an implied copyright license when site owners specifically chose to freely syndicate their content openly to anyone who wishes to pull their content.

It's our pleasure, thank you for participating.

And Copyright can be licensed both explicitly and -- more importantly -- implicitly, as we've already demonstrated above.

It is not illegal at all as demonstrated above. Both parties benefit from syndicated content as long as the content is syndicated properly within the standard with correct attribution/link back to the origin as we've been doing from the start.

Anyone can sue for anything, but that doesn't mean they have a legitimate case. In this case, site owner A bringing a suit against site owner B because site owner B syndicated the content site owner A chose to openly provide the internet would not get very far as the precedential legal case we posted earlier already clearly demonstrated.

Thanks again for your input and concerns.

In response to all 5 posts above, Fair Use and damages have absolutely nothing to do with this matter. When a person posts in an online Forum, they are granting that site a copyright license over their posts. For example, see our own terms, which are completely standard for online Forums:

"You are granting us with a non-exclusive, permanent, irrevocable, unlimited license to use, publish, or re-publish your Content in connection with the Service. You retain copyright over the Content."

This ensure post authors retain Copyright, while providing Forum owners full control over that content within the confines of their site.

Now, when the site owner you've provided your content to then chooses to syndicate that content externally, they are granting yet another copyright license to the external site owners as already demonstrated above. So this matter has nothing to do with Fair Use and everything to do with Copyright licenses, both explicit and implied.

We have plenty of content from our members, so you are wrong again. Victim, it is clear from your belligerent attitude and quick, successive, overly-confident, misinformed, and aggressive posts since joining here today that you cannot be reasoned with. We've sourced our arguments above just like we have sourced our RSS Posts here from the start, and have shown how we've acted in good faith from the start within the actual law, not your misinterpretation of it. You have come on here today and made it seem like what we were doing is illegal, that we knew it was illegal, and that we did it anyway, when in fact and as we've already demonstrated several times above, we actually knew the law, respected it, and always sourced back to the original site to give them credit. Since your mind is already clearly made up and you cannot be reasoned with, feel free to continue discussing this with Jing, but there is nothing more for us to add on this matter. We've already said everything there is to say about this matter and even backed it up with external citations, so we won't be spending any more time on this. Casinomeister's owner was already fine with our explanation.

If you find any of your posts here and you would like for us to remove it, please let us know. We aren't the bad folks Victim is trying to unfairly paint us as and are fully aware of everything we do here.