Scott, we’re in beta but LexMonitor is far from a mess, as you describe it.

There is always going to be legal discussion as it pertains to syndicated content, especially when we’re dealing with lawyers. I do feel very comfortable that the use of the content falls with the fair use doctrine of US copyright law.

LexMonitor’ is displaying titles and with very brief excerpts of blog posts. Full attribution is given to the blog and each author with linking to both.

We have had one party ask to have their content removed because a major law firm was paying them to publish their blog through advertising and they felt they needed, for whatever reason to have their blog titles excerpts removed. We did so.

Lawyers are producing some wonderful content through blogs. The content is going and more helpful to legal professionals and the public as time goes by. As a result we have the potential to improve the image of the profession and advance the law in ways perhaps impossible before.

But to realize the full potential of blogging lawyers’ work, we need to harness tools and mediums being used in vertical industries outside the law. That’s all we’re trying to do with LexMonitor.

I would like to see Kevin make this work. But it remains a mess, and of no utility at all at present.

I think there is a problem with aggregating the content the way Lex Monitor does. (I am a simple real estate lawyer and not a copyright lawyer.)

There is value to having traffic on your blog site and there is value in higher subscription numbers for your blog.

But will anyone care?

If they object to being in LexMonitor I am sure Kevin could convince them otherwise or delete their content.

Personally, I am surprised that anyone would want my feed and am flattered than anyone reads my posts.