Article Tools need to be put into context for users and strike the right balance between sharing and taking; and between personal uses and commercial uses. Article tools and the copyright notice can work in concert to greatly improve the usability of content and increase publisher revenue, while reducing piracy of copyrighted content. Article tools give readers the green light to do something with content besides read it. A recent study by content licensing and tracking company iCopyright claims to have found a link between article tools, the links that let users email, Digg, save or otherwise interact with a story, and content misuse. The premise is that article tools, by encouraging users to copy the content on a site for limited purposes, may actually be creating confusion on the reader’s part and encouraging them to make use of the content beyond the intention of the tool.

While this makes sense to some degree and the study’s research does seem to indicate that there is reason to believe article tools may incite some level of content misuse, there are also nagging issues and other problems with the study that make its findings, and its proposed solutions, seem less certain. The iCopyright study consisted of two parts, a survey of 787 mailing list users as to their habits with reusing content and article tools. The second part was a usability study conducted by an independent lab that compared iCopyright’s article tools to competing services. Also interesting is that 64% of respondents said they would rather use supplied article tools as opposed to other solutions and that the most important tools were email, print, save, share and comment, in that order.

The study then went on to present iCopyright’s article tools, which have strict controls on how the content is used, as a solution to the problem and as an opportunity to turn such uses of the content into a revenue stream. When built in to article tools, content licensing can provide a return ten times that of advertising. However, the biggest problem is the study’s proposed solution, to use iCopyright’s article tools with their protection, is not well supported. The study had already showed that, without any article tools, users will revert to other means to interact with content. Still, none of these issues stop the study from providing some interesting insight into the way article tools are used and how the affect copyright. It will be interesting to see if these results change any major publisher’s approach to article tools as a result. Though the study has its flaws and is, understandably, a promotion for iCopyright’s own article tools services, which include its iCopyright for Creators service (previous coverage), a service targeted at bloggers, it does have some interesting statistics and some great insights. However, standard article tools as a means of protecting content or limiting use is a poor choice.

Why do people use these tools? Well becouse they save time and money if you want to see what some of the common tools are visit the following site for example.

article tools,article spinners,marketing tools

I hope you enjoyed my post