Commercial usage

[kbe...@gmail.com]

I'm reading the API terms and it seems pretty cleawr that there is no
commercial usage allowed without written consent. What does this mean?
If I have a blog or a website and I have adsense or other monetization
on my site, does that mean I can't use the DIGG API for content for
the site?

If that's what it means, how do I get the 'written permission' that
the terms refer to?

[Kevin Bedell]

Has anyone got information on the allowability of commercial usage of the API? The TOS seem to clearly say it's not allowed. But I'm certain that I've already seen people putting together pages using the DIGG API that have adsense on their pages which clearly seems against the TOS.

I'm apprehensive about building anything using the API unless this is clarified. If I build something and Digg just looks the other way when I put adsense (or other affiliate/monetization content) on the pages, that's fine -- unless my site/app becomes popular. Then if it starts generating significant traffic and Digg cuts me off because I'm monetizing the site that would suck.

Can anyone clarify?

I can only assume that if Digg puts up TOS that say the API *cannot* be used for commercial purposes, but then turns their head and doesn't enforce it as people all over the place build sites based on the API that contain adsense links, then they will allow those sites to continue to use the API if they become popular.

If they publish TOS, but then don't enforce them when they are obviously being violated, do they lose enforcement rights later?

Of course, the best thing would be some sort of clarification so we don't have to wonder. Adding risk to my development of apps based on the API just means less overall development of apps -  at least from me and others like me who don't want to risk their efforts being wasted.

--
Kevin Bedell
I blog at:
    http://www.itious.com
    http://30days.itious.com

[Steve Williams]

At 07:01 PM 6/7/2007, kbe...@gmail.com wrote:
>If ... I have adsense or other monetization on my site, does that
>mean I can't use the DIGG API ...?

This came up in April.

http://groups.google.com/group/diggapi/browse_frm/thread/d9784177f8bf706a

Sorry we never got it clarified in the license. I've pinged the
necessary people again, and I hope we'll get it clarified soon.

>If that's what it means, how do I get the 'written permission' that
>the terms refer to?

I doubt you'll need written permission, but if you (or anyone else)
has a commercial application that you'd like to build, please email
me, and I'll be sure it gets to the bizdev folks for consideration.

[Kevin Bedell]

Thanks Steve - I appreciate your assistance very much. I was worried that Digg was going to ignore me! This helps --

If it helps you when speaking to people internally, I'm interested in potentially building apps (I have 1-2 in mind) that I would hope would become popular and generate decent revenue. But I'm worried about spending time on something if Digg could shut me off at any time due to TOS violations. That is, buidling an app that's directly in violation of the TOS and counting on it for revenue seems pretty risky.

It seems like I should focus on looking in other areas to build apps if my goal is to generate revenue and stay away from the DIgg API. But, I'm  fan of Digg and have been a user for a while so I'd like to work on it.

Thanks again -

[EclecticDave]

> > At 07:01 PM 6/7/2007, kbed...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >If ... I have adsense or other monetization on my site, does that
> > >mean I can't use the DIGG API ...?
>
> > This came up in April.
>

> >http://groups.google.com/group/diggapi/browse_frm/thread/d9784177f8bf...
>

Kevin,

Thanks for bringing this issue back up. Can I just pop my head
through the door and say I'm also still interested in getting this
sorted out on way or the other? (I finally got around to playing with
some code recently, so it's starting to become slightly more pressing
for me).

Regards,

David Claughton
www.encoresoup.com

[kbe...@gmail.com]

I've shelved plans to work with the digg api. I can't risk building an
app that Digg could shut down due to a TOS violation.

Until Digg specifies I can build apps that make money on their API
without being in violation of the TOS, I can't risk my efforts. There
are too many other apps that have open api's I can leverage.

[Steve Williams]

I pinged the responsible folks here about this again yesterday. I'll
keep trying.

[Steve Williams]

I'd like to get everyone's feedback about a change we're considering
to clarify permitted uses of the API. The current license is here:

http://apidoc.digg.com/LicenseAgreement

Note this sentence in Section 1:

"Licensee may not install or use the APIs for any other purpose
(including without limit any commercial purpose) without Digg's prior
written consent."

After that sentence, we propose to add this:

"For the sake of clarity, the sale of advertising on a website where
a Digg Application is offered shall not alone constitute a commercial
use under this Agreement, provided that the advertising is not
integrated within the Digg Application itself."

Is that sufficient to address the uncertainty? Please let us know!

As always, if you want to be alerted to changes to the License
Agreement and other changes to the API Documentation, subscribe to
the RSS feed:

http://apidoc.digg.com/rss2.php

[EclecticDave]

On Jun 28, 10:39 pm, Steve Williams <s...@digg.com> wrote:
> "For the sake of clarity, the sale of advertising on a website where
> a Digg Application is offered shall not alone constitute a commercial
> use under this Agreement, provided that the advertising is not
> integrated within the Digg Application itself."

Steve,

First of all, thanks - this is great news!

I'm not entirely sure how to interpret that last part "provided that

the advertising is not integrated within the Digg Application itself".

Does this mean no advertising on the same page? Or since Google
adwords and similar services are contextual the ads displayed may be
based on content output by the Digg Application - does this count as
"integrated".

Or do you mean to say "provided the Digg Application does not itself
create or directly influence the content of the advertising" - in
which case perhaps that might be a better wording?

Thanks again,

David.

[Steve Williams]

At 03:47 PM 6/28/2007, EclecticDave wrote:
>... "provided that the advertising is not integrated within the Digg

>Application itself". Does this mean no advertising on the same page?

I am confident we do NOT mean "no advertising on the same page."

>Or do you mean to say "provided the Digg Application does not itself

>create or directly influence the content of the advertising" ...?

I don't think that's a lot clearer: If the app creates HTML pages,
ads obviously will be "influenced" by all of the text on the
page. We don't mean to prohibit that.

Thanks for your feedback. I look forward to hearing from others, too.

[kbe...@gmail.com]

Thank you for clarfying and for being flexible. I think this is a
clear improvement.

It would be best if you could provide example/use cases of allowed/
disalllowed behavior as it would remove some guesswork. The language
is still a bit vague, but it's certainly better.

Here are a couple use cases (not things I specifically am thinking of
doing, but just use cases):

1. A developer builds an application that creates a 'weblog' direct
from content accessed through the API. Every third post on the site,
an adsense block is inserted onto the page. Would this be a violation?

2. A developer builds a site that is dedicated to mining and
presenting stories dugg on a certain topic, say Basketball. I'm
thinking something like 'google news' but built from Dugg stories. If
the developer puts adsense or something similar on the page, is this a
violation? Also, would it matter where on the page the ads are?

3. If a developer builds a site that is a mashup of Diggs shown on a
google map, then has ads on the map as well, Is that OK? What if each
'bubble' on the map that shows a Digg also has an ad in it? Is that
ok?

In the end, the issue is really risk. If someone builds a site that
becomes wildly popular and is worth a million dollars -- how can they
be confident Digg won't shut them down?

Thanks!
Kevin