digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

What Do You Do When Someone Steals Your Content

lorelle.wordpress.com — If (should I say "when") you experience having your website content or designs "ripped off" by some thief the tips listed here will be very handy in how to handle the situation.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Bluth, on 10/12/2007, -4/+39complain about it on your blog?
    • shindig111, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Frankly, complaining on our blogs might help sometimes. Action has to be taken but sternly. I remember last time when Vitaly Friedman's handbook got hijacked, he complained on his blog and the people who read his blog regularly fought for him by complaining it to the host and other stuff...

      I can see good things coming out of complaining on our blogs.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Depends how much money one has. I essentially had my domain name stolen (well, not stolen but they created a domain that was named the same as mine and offered the same services and only changed the domain by two letters -- kind of like calling your fast food burger joing McDonald instead of McDonald's.

      The truth is, you take court action. That's how you deal with it. But court action is not cheap. Or simple. You practically need a lawyer just to figure out what paper work to fill out and in what order. Much less to represent you. Most people know that anyone short of a corporation can't afford litigation, so they take without concern for being caught -- or at least knowing that if they get caught, nothing will happen to them.
    • pbjorge12, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Generally though, if you are dealing with simple plagiarism of content a simple message to their host will solve the problem :).
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7In all seriousness, who cares? Putting something on the web is like shouting it out on a corner. If you want to keep your secrets secret, don't publish them on the web.

      I am a programmer and sort of a web designer. I got a lot of help with both when I first started out from generous people on the web. I figure if somebody wants to steal my site designs or content, then I'm just paying the world back for everything its given me.

      People who worry about somebody "stealing" from their web sites are kind of stupid, I think. When somebody actually steals my web site and I don't have it anymore because it has really been stolen, then I'll worry. If somebody comes in to my house and clones all my stuff so we both have it all, good for him. Now we both have cool junk.
  • Odiumjunkie, on 10/12/2007, -31/+8Wow, this is just what we need, small independent content producers acting like the RIAA.
    • tempusrob, on 10/12/2007, -5/+26Give me a friggin' break ... defending one's copyrights is not the same as litigious extortion.
    • chokeyou, on 10/12/2007, -14/+3Hooray for litigation.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8"Give me a friggin' break ... defending one's copyrights is not the same as litigious extortion."

      One mans "litigious extortion" is another man's defending his copyright. How do you suggest they defend their copyright?
    • TopherT, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Why should they have to enforce the copyright? What do they loose having someone else with a similar website? This is exactly like the RIAA. "ripped off" by some 'thief'? Last time I checked most people using Digg object to the comparison between using ideas of annother without depriving them of anything and stealing.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3"Last time I checked most people using Digg object to the comparison between using ideas of annother without depriving them of anything and stealing."

      Right, because the phrase, You stole my idea, isn't a part of the English language.
    • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+7geekee...maybe you are new to digg, but to digg users, you can't steal something unless you actually deprive them of the object.

      So the only way you can STEAL someone web content is if you somehow made it so that they ouldn't also have it on their site.

      Don't look at me...that is the consensus of Digg users, not mine.

      Oh, but if the victim is, say, Apple, or Google, or the "theives" are Microsoft (like with a font) or Best Buy, or Dell, then Digg DOES consider it stealing.

      Go figure. Just part of the hypocrisy ofthe sad lives of digg users.
    • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5"geekee...maybe you are new to digg, but to digg users, you can't steal something unless you actually deprive them of the object."

      I'm not sure that's accurate. There's a difference between listening to music without paying for it and slapping someone else's content on a site while snagging ad revenue or cred. I think most digg users would consider that quite lame.

      I had worse happen to me. I came up with an idea, put it to use and had someone go and patent it. Then he sent me a DMCA take-down order. My page was from 98, and there's record of it on the Internet Archive as well as Usenet archives. Did I try to sue him? No way. Have you ever tried to fight a patent? Costly. I moved on. But if I had the money and time to waste, I'd bury him. Mostly because he looked at the evidence and was still smug and wouldn't back off to just let us co-exist when rightfully he should have been the one who lost his site. (although I actually would have never asked for or wanted that, I think competition is good for business)

      Fighting for your own content that you created and protecting that content from being exploited without compensating you
      for it is VERY different from being a middle-man while protecting content on behalf of someone from having their content simply spread around for personal use without profit. And anyone who tells you that nebulous "lost profits" is the same as someone actually making money off your work is being duped.

      For the record, I did RTFA. I'm commenting on the generalization and stereotyping of digg users and some digg users who have been brainwashed into thinking things like "own nothing, have everything(and pay us forever)" is a good deal.
    • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Yes...I am sure most DIGG users would consider that different. That is my point. The digg users are HORRIBLY out of touch with reality.

      The FACT of the matter is, BOTH are stealing.
    • Seumas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5"Wow, this is just what we need, small independent content producers acting like the RIAA."

      That's really pathetic. Downloading a song movie to watch privately on your computer is hardly the same as taking someone's content and profiting from it and passing it off as your own. To even remotely compare, people would have to be taking songs, calling themselves the artist who created the song and then selling the music.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@tempusrob

      No, but having people file stupid lawsuits over every little sneeze makes this world a pretty ***** place to live regardless.
  • Teeg, on 10/12/2007, -5/+8They totally neglect to mention "fair use" though.
    • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+14Fair use allows you to mention the copyrighted work, to reference it and a few other things. Not to just reuse it as your own. You still need the original creator's permission to use copyrighted work.

      I wish people would stop running around screaming "FAIR USE FAIR USE" without actually knowing anything about fair use.
    • koshak, on 10/12/2007, -4/+3AMEN to that Cojawfee!
    • Teeg, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0"This is the blatant use of part or all of your site's content on another site without permission."

      This is the definition that the article gives. There is never even a notice given that it's not infringing to use the material for "fair use," outside of warning people to be prepared for resistance and giving an example of a letter that may claim fair use as a reason to not take the information down. As much as some companies and people might wish otherwise, fair use is perfectly legal and as long as I am using the material "for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research" (from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107), then I am well within my rights to use it. The comment that the article gave in the one instance that comes close to mentioning fair use (warning about the letter) is "Part of preparing yourself for tackling copyright infringement and theft is to know thy enemy."
  • sysrpl, on 10/12/2007, -2/+38That's a great article. I'm going to put it on my website because other people need to read it.
  • capn_caveman, on 10/12/2007, -4/+6I just bust a cap in 'em. Oh wait... I don't have any content.
  • bigdig, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4One interesting point raised in the article is "If you find that others are linking to the stolen material as if it is the source ...". This has certainly caused some very heated accusation as in my other post, the author actually accused the person who provides link of STEALING,

    http://digg.com/programming/So,_is_it_STEALING_
  • chaosmachine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5there are actually agencies you can hire to scan the internet for people ripping off your content.. although, googling for random quotes from your site is probably just as effective.
  • JiveTurkeyPunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0i usually post on slashdot.org and complain.
  • phlll, on 10/12/2007, -7/+10It isn't stealing if nothing physical is taken. It's "copyright infringement."
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6Exactly. It's like saying you stole a concert if you recorded it.
    • geekee, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5"It isn't stealing if nothing physical is taken. It's "copyright infringement."

      Yes, because no one ever stole an idea.
    • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7Steal v. tr.: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.

      How odd, I don't see anything about physical objects in there.

      I don't see anything about physical objects in these other definitions either:

      2. To get or effect surreptitiously or artfully: steal a kiss; stole the ball from an opponent.
      3. To move, carry, or place surreptitiously.
      4. To draw attention unexpectedly in (an entertainment), especially by being the outstanding performer: The magician's assistant stole the show with her comic antics.

      v. intr.

      1. To commit theft.
      2. To move, happen, or elapse stealthily or unobtrusively.

      n.

      1. The act of stealing.
      2. Slang. A bargain.
    • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2"Yes, because no one ever stole an idea."

      Correct. You cannot steal an idea. It's what you do with that idea that matters.

      So, your point was?

      Let me make it a little more specific.

      His analogy was a good one. If your record a concert, you have not stolen it.
      But if you record a concert and sell it, you have made a profit on a specific
      work that should go directly to the performer.

      But if you steal an idea. Let's say, it's a better way to organize your desktop.
      So you "steal" the idea, go home and organize your desktop in this new, exciting and novel fashion. Nothing was really stolen.

      But if you go home and instead call a publisher friend of yours and tell him you
      have a great book idea, and "Make your desktop teh gheyest" gets published,
      you have stolen something. Profit that should belong to the person who came up
      with the idea.

      But nothing is stolen in the world of ideas and creativity unless a profit is MADE, not "lost".
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3"Steal v. tr.: To take (the property of another) without right or permission.
      How odd, I don't see anything about physical objects in there."

      Look up "take".
    • Fosnez, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0take:
      To get into one's possession by force, skill, or artifice, especially:
      To capture physically; seize: take an enemy fortress.
      To seize with authority; confiscate.
      To kill, snare, or trap (fish or game, for example).
  • MadEnvoy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Smack 'em in the back of the head with the content?
  • dhughes, on 10/12/2007, -7/+3 The word "content" is now banned for all humans to say or write from this moment on.
  • jayf, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5Is it even possible to "own" a site's look?

    This might be getting a bit out of hand.
    • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3A design is a creation, is intellectual property and can be owned.
    • Bigcat1021, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3It is no different than a logo.
    • chokeyou, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Might be?
    • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I think it depends on the level of uniqueness involved. I've seen people try to copyright and even patent the most obvious, common things.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You are right. This is getting out of hand. Just because somebody centers an 800px DIV, colors it blue, places a logo across the top with a drop-down CSS menu underneath, and then writes pointless articles doesn't mean that they have stolen something or should be called a thief.

      Also, who is the bigger thief, somebody who comes up with a similar idea to your web site, or you when you sue them for millions of dollars?

      This is already out of hand.
  • dave_colorado, on 10/12/2007, -3/+15this is totally stupid.

    i have a business website i've spent years on.

    if somebody steals the way it looks or images from it - more power to them. why?

    1. i have a business to run, i don't have time to deal with something so trivial.
    2. i don't have time to scour the web to see if somebody did steal my content.

    if it was a competitor, that's a different story.

    otherwise, knock yourself out. my website isn't the best on the web, it's really nice, but you could steal from nicer ones.

    so who cares? really? are you going to track someone down or are you going to focus on your business?

    and if someone steals your blog design...well...your blog ain't that great anyway, charlie. get over yourself. for serious.

    no digg.
    • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Ansolutely. If you spend that much time focusing on paranoia instead of improvement, you've already lost the game.
  • pandaura, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4First cry and then do nothing and simply be happy that others enjoyed your content to such a great extent that they thought it worthwhile to use as their own. I hate people who try to own the world for their own selfish egotistical purposes. Grow up.
    • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5You'd feel different if you had the ability to create something other people liked and someone sullied your name by using your work for their own gain.
    • pandaura, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I have, and I don't. I guess I am more grown up than you.
    • Cojawfee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5How is it immature to want to protect one's own works? Since when have people become apathetic that you don't even mind when your creations get ripped off. Not to mention that most rip-offs are low-quality and give you a bad name just for being associated. Plus more people see that you apparently let this person make a bad spinoff of your work, so they will make an even worse one, and someone will make another, and someone will make another. Until you aren't even known as the original author anymore.

      I guess I am just more grown up than you, to the point where I see the flaws of "It's on the internet, so it's up for grabs."
    • el_jefe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@pandaura
      How would expect to make any money if you couldn't sale the material you worked hard on to sale to make a living? I guess if you still live with your parents, income is not such a big deal.

    • TechnoPops, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Have you ever noticed that many people who tell other people to grow up seem to need to grow up themselves?
    • kindrobot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I agree, but sometimes those same people will turn around and claim the idea was theirs in the first place and try to stop YOU. So protecting yourself from those people can be hard to do. Trust me, you never see it coming. But in my case, I did the same as you would. Moved on and did something I felt was even better.
  • wtfdan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8You could do what YTMND did to eBaumsworld and have thousands of people DDoS/exploit their servers...

    Actually, probably not because nobody cares.

    :-|
    • Phil246, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2strictly speaking it wasnt ytmnd that organised it iirc, it was done spontaneously by their community, along with people from Something Awful as well as some other sites.
      Still, ebaumsworld is notorious for stealing content - regardless of their claims that its "all legit" because the submitter signs a waiver
  • Maybach907, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0Call a hacker. Make him trace the idiot. Then get your 12 guage out, and you know the rest...... (I hope you do)
    • burke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I don't.... think.... the hacker's weapon of choice is a 12 gauge...
  • nucleocide, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://www.ripperhunting.com/
  • techhit9908, on 10/12/2007, -9/+2Call Brock Sampson and have him rip e'm a new one?

    Or you could just email the person whom stole your content and tell e'm that you want them to remove it.
    -----------
    Come on diggers help me out! Visit this link! http://gh.ffshrine.org?r=3654 (217/1000)
    • gigabitten, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4hmmm, or spam your comments? bastard
    • kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1splog
    • kurtu5, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1splog splog splog, dig him not

      /Hmm I though my above post wasnt posted.
  • securitymonkey, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2What about a solution like http://blogs.ittoolbox.com/security/investigator/archives/007215.asp ?
  • slf67, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Interesting article. I'll probably copy it and put it on my website.
  • alethien, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I punch them in the face and steal there jacket. Duh.
  • jimrooney, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1you cry obviously
  • gigabitten, on 10/12/2007, -10/+4heres what you do

    1. slap yourself in the face

    2. place your hand on the nearest bible and repeat after me.. "i _________ (name), will not go complaining about it on my blog or in an article.

    3. get your credit card out

    4. pay me $20.00 for the brief psychological help.

    5. put your foot in your mouth.

    6. swallow hard.. real hard
  • DiddyWolf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2didn't really care for the article, but for some reason then I read the title, it popped into my head to the tune of the original oompa loompa songs..... Ow, my brain hurts...

    --DiddyWolf
  • JoeWall, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6i see now the majority of digg users are hypocrites. they digg articles which bash RIAA and other DRM technologies.

    now when one digg user has his content copied by another Internet user, you talk about copyrights, intellectual property, legal action, harassing, ...

    i really don't see the difference between musicians or movie producers trying to control their artwork and this user "nastar" trying to protect his graphics or texts.

    don't say that you have paid for your songs or movies and that you should have free use of these afterwards. if an artist says that he distributes his artwork with one kind of medium and nothing else, you either agree with these terms and buy his art or disagree and go somewhere else. after all, he is the creator and decides how he distributes his art. for people disagreeing with DRM, saying that you should be able to copy it on DVD or a flash portable player, it's like complaining that a painter cannot distribute his content to you on paper format, cardboard, plastic , glass or any other exotic format you have home and that you would like the painting on.

    i have also seen arguments saying that artists are not the problem but majors are, saying that they are all greedy and fights against citizens. well, i agree, we all have to earn some money, money rules and corrupts, that s how the world is right now. this is a fact. anyway, without majors, there would be much less movies and songs. unless you guys stand up and start a parallel industry where everyone is a volunteer


    stop being hypocritical.
    copy songs, movies, ebooks on any media you like. and fight DRM, and fight for a world where everybody can use other's people work.

    or recognize that DRM is a fair system, maybe unperfect, but who recognizes creator's rights. question of integrity.
    • Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3There is a slight difference, which you may consider pointless, but I figured I'll state it anyway..

      When someone pirates/copies/shares music/videos/content, they're not plagiarizing the original author, they're redistributing the content, it reaches more ears, eyes, whatever. Although the author isn't making the money off it, at least directly, so that's bad.

      As opposed to..

      When someone rips off something which you've already provided to people online, it's usually a case of the 'thief' re-displaying your content, whatever format it may be (written, graphic, etc.) and claiming it as their own, or using it in a way publicly which you, the original author, had no control over.

      I'm not trying to justify piracy, I'm just trying to convey the idea that they're different.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"if an artist says that he distributes his artwork with one kind of medium and nothing else, you either agree with these terms and buy his art or disagree and go somewhere else"

      That's just not true. The US Supreme court has upheld, in Sony v. Universal, the right of the American consumer to "timeshift" television content by recording it to VHS.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeshifting

      The original medium? OTA broadcast, satelite, or cable. The new medium? VHS. This precedent obviously aplies to far more formats and media than just these, as well.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Klowner

      You know, to be perfectly honest, I couldn't care less if somebody plagiarized my work. More power to them! If I'm to stupid or lazy to make something out of my ideas and work, that's my fault.

      I think our society is retarded. All our laws and desires focus on greed and control. If we reversed that and made our laws consider the common good a little more and thought a little about our fellow beings once in a while, think of where we could be as a society.
    • Klowner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@Herolint

      Valid point, but not everyone's goal is to make money off their content, but just to share it for free. Then they're the ones who are truly lazy, because they don't bother creating something of their own to make them money, they just copy and sell it as theirs so they can put another plasma tv in their oceanside home.
  • GrendelT, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I had a problem of some Italian ISP linking back to my files section. After repeated attempts to contact the ISP via email, no corrective action was done on their part. So, I put in a small PHP script to check if the referrer was the ISP in question.
    If so, it redirected to a page with static HTML made using *their* images 1000x. MAYBE that'll get their attention, but probably not. Probably not the best way to handle it, but it beats trying to link to a goatse or something - and I've had alot less traffic from their site. :)
  • SystemBomb, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I didn't read the whole article, but I didn't see a copyright on her blog page. ;)
    • alexi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Then you didn't look, cuz it is there.
  • cuppyCake, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4I'm sure the first guy to invent the wheel was so pissed about the theft of his 'intellectual property'... IP is a ***** notion, perpetuated by a society that's so well-off and uninformed that it ignores its ACTUAL problems to whine about 'content'... gimmie a break.
    • Norante, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Sure, let's fall in anarchy and pillage each others works.

      There is a difference between plagiarism and blatant stealing.
    • cuppyCake, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6And there's a difference between the free exchange of ideas and 'anarchy and pillaging', too.
  • sakvor, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I had lots of content stolen from my Icelandic Christmas site http://jol.ismennt.is (non profit educational site) in 2003 and it showed up on the site http://www.jol.is (commercial site) with all references, pictures, authors etc. carefully removed. The owner of http://www.jol.is was very arrogant when he was contacted. My revenge was to put up a special web page where I documented the theft http://jol.ismennt.is/brot.htm and contact local media about this. I and the owner of the jol.is website were interviewed on local radio and immediately most of the stolen material disappeared from his website.
  • casca, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1IN reality, it's not worth trying to go after people that steal your content. It'll cost tons in lawyer fees and if they are using a good ISP such as Leaseweb (Offshore), they're not going to give a rats ass about some US citizen complaining about stolen content.
  • TWiTarmy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1creative commons anyone?
  • livestradamus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Let them steal my lines, I've got a million more (& better) ones just waiting to be put out there.
    Go ahead I ghrant you permission- steal this line.
  • kewlceo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2For those with the originality to come up with creative words or designs, pat yourselves on the backs when you're copied. You've done something well enough to warrant immitation. And, since you're the creative sort, you'll come up with something else cool, and that will be immitated as well. Get used to it.
  • sadsac, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The author of this blog-o-story is a little too full of himself, like he is his own biggest fan.

    The guy obviously has no life, so he fills the void with overblown paranoia.

    He needn't worry... No one is going to "steal" his wordpress blog format.
  • renskav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Cease and desist? DMCA? Lol dont make me laugh, obviously he has trouble understanding that US Law doesnt apply everywhere in the universe. Not that i've ever stolen content, but check http://thepiratebay.org 's legal section on how i would deal with people like this.
  • Iconoclast5000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Repeat after me: Copyright infringement is not theft. Copyright infringement is illegal. Theft is illegal. Copyright Infringement is still distinct from theft. Copyright Infringement will not become theft just because it is your website content being copied rather than music from a member of the RIAA.
    • TechnoPops, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Umm... aren't BOTH examples of copyright infringement?
  • Izzie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1and how exactly that "content " can belong to someone ?
    " hey guys I'm the first to have written "the" "it" and "e"on my website, so it belongs to me, if you ever reuse it I'll sue you, and you'll owe me money!! "

    cut the bs already.
    • rideagain, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@issie:

      well, if you write a book you'd want others to acknowledge you as the author, no? It would not be fair if they pretended it was their own work.

      it's hard to say where copyright begins (a few letters? a word? a paragraph? a page?), but that doesn't mean that copyright shouldn't exist.
  • Socialist, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Did you honstly think that you could put someting on the internet without someone copying it?
  • Glandmaster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Copyright infringement is not theft.

    Here is an excerpt from a BBC apology which explains it further:

    First though, an apology. File sharing is not theft. It has never been theft. Anyone who says it is theft is wrong and has unthinkingly absorbed too many Recording Industry Association of America press releases. We know that script line was wrong. It was a mistake. We're very, very sorry.

    If copyright infringement was theft then I'd be in jail every time I accidentally used football pix on Newsnight without putting "Pictures from Sky Sport" in the top left corner of the screen. And I'm not. So it isn't. So you can stop telling us if you like. We hear you.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/newsnight/4758636.stm
  • sblinn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Humor: when the same group of people call people who commit copyright infringement of their works "thieves", yet when the same group of people commit copyright infringement of other people's works, they call it downloading.
  • quade, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1This was a pretty good article. I'm gonna have to copy and paste it onto my blog...
  • rckymtnrfc, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I had someone on MySpace linking to an image on my server instead of just putting it on his server. Couldn't have used much bandwidth, but just to get back at him I changed the image to a big blinking box that said "I steal bandwidth from xxxxxxxxx.com". It seems he wasn't using the image size tags, so it took up his whole page.....Kinda funny, but he fixed it a few days later.
  • Anchoret, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2> In all seriousness, who cares?

    I do.

    I'm a writer. I write well and cogently, and my output is finite and profitable.

    I have had professional writers steal my messages from Usenet, for example, and publish them verbatim as their own work in commercial magazines for money.

    When caught, their only lame excuse was, "oh, uh, I thought everything on the Internet was in the public domain."

  • sillywampa, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I recently had my entire CSS and XHTML compliant layout stolen. The person even set up a domain that was only 3 letters different than mine. The content was different, but I was pissed. I contacted her and she apologized saying she was just learning. I talked her into at least changing her colors and giving me a link.
  • jdonner, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Funny how some people here make up their own copyright laws. Kids, don't talk about copyright issues if you're too lazy to read what the law actually says. Also don't make up your own rules, just because the current one seems to be rediculous to you, that's not how our society works, at least not in a modern western country. Use your brain if you have one; you're simply a thief in many cases, the problem is that you're too immature to admit it.
  • sud0n1m, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Does anyone have a mirror of this content? I would like to read the article, but will only go to a site that steals the content on principle.
  • kirewass, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0The blogosphere is full of splogs. It is big problem for Google and for other major search advertising providers too. It is also a problem for those who are working on the Internet. The way content is taken from one site and replicated to dozens of others harms honest webmasters. Splogs copy content from a blog's feed or mix headlines or nonsense content from various feeds with the keywords they are trying to target. The splog spammers utilize search engines, splogs and doorway pages to generate revenues at the expense of bloggers. Some of the splog farms are sophisticated and will probably continue to get more sophisticated.
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.