How Big A Problem Is Blog Plagiarism?
from the doing-the-math dept
I'm always surprised when I see some well known blogger flip out over the fact that spam blogs are copying their content. It's happened for many years -- and happens to us all the time. Is it annoying? Absolutely. However, is it worth making a big stink over it? Probably not. The latest to suddenly notice the trend is Om Malik who has started a big discussion on blog plagiarism after coming across a site that was copying his (and other VoIP bloggers') content. So, why isn't it worth getting upset over? First of all, it's a very fine line. How different is it from some random site reposting someone's content and an RSS aggregator reposting content. For example, here's Bloglines reposting Om's content, which it's done for years. Should he be upset about that? People say their complaint is that others are making money off of their content -- but that's not a realistic complaint. The NY Times book review makes a ton of money off of other people's content -- by adding value to it and promoting it. Obviously, you can argue that scraper sites don't add value, but some people could find them useful as aggregations of content. Sites like Unmediated and Davenetics' Newsmonger (which appears to be down right now) don't do anything other than repost other people's content (including our own) -- and yet we don't hear too many people complaining about them "making money" off of bloggers' content.One major difference is that the site Om is specifically complaining about is taking his content without crediting him -- which is a more reasonable complaint, but not quite what everyone seems to be talking about. However, when that's happened to Techdirt we've discovered two things -- and both suggest that all this debate is a waste of time. First, when we shoot off a quick email to the sites asking for proper credit, we almost always hear back with an apology, from some "new" blogger who isn't quite sure how it all works, and they usually fix things right away and start giving us credit. It helps, by the way, that we first thank them for finding our content valuable enough to reuse, and then ask nicely for proper credit. However, much more importantly, the sites that (1) don't credit properly and (2) don't respond to such emails almost always disappear within a month. Why? Because no one reads them. Who goes out and finds some nameless site that's obviously reposting content? The people who would find such content interesting almost definitely are reading the original sources, and will know immediately that the site in question is ripping people off. So, the complaints that these sites are "taking money" from the original sites is probably bogus as well. They're not taking money away because no one's reading those sites.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
Whether it's "realistic" or feasible to police something is entirely another issue, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's right or wrong to steal the content.
And as for making money off others content, blog or not, that should be terms for suit and I'd certainly hope the author would have the ability to prosecute to the full extent of the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
From... 10 Big Myths about copyright explained
...Did I just violate copyright law by quoting that website, even though it was referenced as the source to where this text came from?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of thi
No you didn't because you cited your source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
I never denied it was infringement. I only questioned whether it was worth making a big stink about it, and then posited that it is not worth it.
I find it amazing that you would imply that it's ok to steal another persons work without authorization and without crediting the author.
Again, I'm not implying that it's "ok." I'm saying that the amount of time and effort wasted going after it is really *wasted* and could be spent on much better pursuits.
Whether it's "realistic" or feasible to police something is entirely another issue, but that has nothing to do with whether or not it's right or wrong to steal the content.
Again, not the point. However, if you're going to complain about stuff, doesn't it make sense to do a cost/benefit analysis of how much time and effort you're wasting over something so trivial?
And as for making money off others content, blog or not, that should be terms for suit and I'd certainly hope the author would have the ability to prosecute to the full extent of the law.
So, would you support Om suing Bloglines and those other sites that are commercial endeavors and make money off of his sites as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
However would I have been right, or would I have "supported" someone who chose to do so, yes. Part of the problem with out society today is that it's not worth it to protect your interests anymore and because of this people with questionable morality will steal whatever it is they want without fear of reprisal or remorse.
My interpretation of your original post, Mike, was that you were saying it was silly to be in a huff over something as prevelant or insignificant as plagurism. That was my interpretation, correct or incorrect. But without attaching that belief to you, I would say that it is a common enough mentality today and very sad to say. Can we change it? Problably not easily but we should certainly try. What right does anyone have to steal anothers work without authorization or credit AND in some cases to profit from it? None at all.
So yes I'd support anyone who seeks to protect their interests in any justified matter. But if a site says "you may freely use this material so long as credit is given to this site" then go for it since approval was given by the author.
Sorry for the long winded post :)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Almost sounds like you are appoving of this be
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
But again, you last paragraph in this article basically sums it all up nicely -- "So, the complaints that these sites are "taking money" from the original sites is probably bogus as well. They're not taking money away because no one's reading those sites."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
;) Here's how other bloggers think about it
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Content & distribution: some unsuitable for child
Why is this a problem: ethics. If bloggers are willing to slide on their own peers, in a medium we've created...
...then this will keep happening: Bush.
http://www.bushsbrain.com/images/trailers/BBTrailerIntTrailerLoRes.mov
Namaste
BlueBerry Pick'n is ThisCanadian
"Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
I find it insane that we even entertain these things. If it's copyrighted, post your copyright information and sue. If you stole it, expect to be sued. Why do we need more legislation?
BLOG's are a complete waste of valuable webserver space anyway. The information on them is either personal in nature or so opinionated that the information contained cannot possibly considered as reliable. If it's personal, I dno't really want to know, if it's unreliable , I don't need it. If it's Blogged I don't want to know and I certainly don't need it.
I'm done ranting now....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
What a totally ignorant statement. Better ask Dan Rather just how much of a waste they are. On second thought, better not, a few blogs rightfully cost him his job. With FACTS BTW, not anything "personal in nature" or "opinionated."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
You do know that you are reading a blog RIGHT NOW, don't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Agree
When I read Om Malik's original post I had a hard time mustering any concern. Partly, it's because I distribute my content under a CC license anyway. But the other issue is this- people might violate that license, but am I going to hunt them down? Do I want to invest my valuable time trying to patch what really are small leaks?
It boils down to the fact that we've got a really messed up idea of what IP really is, and what the best way to defend it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just a Note...
Whether or not a use it attributed or not does not change its standing in copyright law. Copyright deals, quite literally, with one's exclusive right to make copies of their work. While attribution is a stipulation for fair use, that only deals with small samples of a work, not using the whole thing.
If I decide not to give permission to reuse any of my work under any circumstances, that is my choice and the only exception that is granted is the narrow fair use clause. While that's a gray area, copying and pasting whole works is pretty much never covered by it.
If you were to copy, paste and attribute something I wrote without permission, it would be infringement the same as if you had plagiarized it. The only difference that could make is when determining damages.
Think about it for a second. Those file sharers that are being sued, they aren't claiming the songs as their own. Just freely distributing attributed MP3s without permission. Text is given the same protection.
Personally I have no problem with people using my work so long as it is attribute and I use CC licenses to that effect, but still, others might not be so generous and it's important to make note of this.
Just wanted to clear that up...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Just a Note...
In this case, it's a waste of time and effort against a site that almost definitely will disappear for lack of revenue within weeks.
The ONLY people directing others to this site are those complaining about it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pakistan's EssayRelief plagiarism outfit tries to
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=400292&in_page_i d=1770
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]