Comments on: RSS Brief: Another Scraping/Spam Threat http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Mon, 13 Feb 2012 07:59:41 +0000 hourly 1 By: JB http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-64498 JB Sun, 23 Sep 2007 06:49:13 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-64498 Ramana: I wonder that myself. You simply can not summarize 1000 words of content in 50 words of summary. I noticed that no one, in email or comment, asked for a summary feed of this site. I'm going to guess that there is no interest in it. Therefore, I believe others here feel the same way. Ramana: I wonder that myself. You simply can not summarize 1000 words of content in 50 words of summary. I noticed that no one, in email or comment, asked for a summary feed of this site. I’m going to guess that there is no interest in it.

Therefore, I believe others here feel the same way.

]]> By: JB http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-121211 JB Sun, 23 Sep 2007 01:49:13 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-121211 Ramana: I wonder that myself. You simply can not summarize 1000 words of content in 50 words of summary. I noticed that no one, in email or comment, asked for a summary feed of this site. I'm going to guess that there is no interest in it. Therefore, I believe others here feel the same way. Ramana: I wonder that myself. You simply can not summarize 1000 words of content in 50 words of summary. I noticed that no one, in email or comment, asked for a summary feed of this site. I'm going to guess that there is no interest in it. Therefore, I believe others here feel the same way.

]]> By: Ramana Rajgopaul http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-121210 Ramana Rajgopaul Sat, 22 Sep 2007 15:10:28 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-121210 Apart from all that has been said in the various comments, I would take serious objection to the whole process on principle. The blogger has taken pains to be as detailed as he thinks is necessary. How can a precis convey what the writer wants to convey? If at all any one should be responsible for this, surely, this should be the original writer? Apart from all that has been said in the various comments, I would take serious objection to the whole process on principle. The blogger has taken pains to be as detailed as he thinks is necessary. How can a precis convey what the writer wants to convey? If at all any one should be responsible for this, surely, this should be the original writer?

]]> By: JB http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-64413 JB Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:19:53 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-64413 Andy and Will: For some reason my previous comment didn't take. I'll just say that I agree completely that what the AP and Yahoo did here is entirely wrong. If I had been the content owner, I would have sought to register the works with the USCO and then file against both of them considering what happened. That is especially true for the AP. I agree that these are worse sins than what RSS Brief is doing and that we have to prioritize our efforts. However, we to at least look at all types of content misuse. We can't ignore one type because it's not the worst possible. That's like ignoring assault because it's not murder. Still, I agree that the AP and Yahoo need to pay for this. This was a tremendous faux pas. Andy and Will: For some reason my previous comment didn’t take. I’ll just say that I agree completely that what the AP and Yahoo did here is entirely wrong. If I had been the content owner, I would have sought to register the works with the USCO and then file against both of them considering what happened. That is especially true for the AP.

I agree that these are worse sins than what RSS Brief is doing and that we have to prioritize our efforts. However, we to at least look at all types of content misuse. We can’t ignore one type because it’s not the worst possible. That’s like ignoring assault because it’s not murder.

Still, I agree that the AP and Yahoo need to pay for this. This was a tremendous faux pas.

]]> By: JB http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-121209 JB Fri, 21 Sep 2007 08:19:53 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-121209 Andy and Will: For some reason my previous comment didn't take. I'll just say that I agree completely that what the AP and Yahoo did here is entirely wrong. If I had been the content owner, I would have sought to register the works with the USCO and then file against both of them considering what happened. That is especially true for the AP.I agree that these are worse sins than what RSS Brief is doing and that we have to prioritize our efforts. However, we to at least look at all types of content misuse. We can't ignore one type because it's not the worst possible. That's like ignoring assault because it's not murder.Still, I agree that the AP and Yahoo need to pay for this. This was a tremendous faux pas. Andy and Will: For some reason my previous comment didn't take. I'll just say that I agree completely that what the AP and Yahoo did here is entirely wrong. If I had been the content owner, I would have sought to register the works with the USCO and then file against both of them considering what happened. That is especially true for the AP.I agree that these are worse sins than what RSS Brief is doing and that we have to prioritize our efforts. However, we to at least look at all types of content misuse. We can't ignore one type because it's not the worst possible. That's like ignoring assault because it's not murder.Still, I agree that the AP and Yahoo need to pay for this. This was a tremendous faux pas.

]]> By: Will http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-64362 Will Thu, 20 Sep 2007 17:32:03 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-64362 I read Andy's article and that really seems out of line. I think a site like Yahoo should NEVER republish content of any amount without a link back to the ORIGINAL author. Even if the site Yahoo gets their story from neglected the link, Yahoo has an obligation, moral and ethical, if even maybe legal, to link to the original source. Yahoo can not claim innocence as they know only too well the value of something like this to the original author, and have the resources to get a link to the original writing. I would think an attorney could have a field day with a suit claiming damages to a writer when their content, in any form. is published on Yahoo without attribution and a link? I read Andy’s article and that really seems out of line. I think a site like Yahoo should NEVER republish content of any amount without a link back to the ORIGINAL author. Even if the site Yahoo gets their story from neglected the link, Yahoo has an obligation, moral and ethical, if even maybe legal, to link to the original source. Yahoo can not claim innocence as they know only too well the value of something like this to the original author, and have the resources to get a link to the original writing.

I would think an attorney could have a field day with a suit claiming damages to a writer when their content, in any form. is published on Yahoo without attribution and a link?

]]> By: Will http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-121208 Will Thu, 20 Sep 2007 12:32:03 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-121208 I read Andy's article and that really seems out of line. I think a site like Yahoo should NEVER republish content of any amount without a link back to the ORIGINAL author. Even if the site Yahoo gets their story from neglected the link, Yahoo has an obligation, moral and ethical, if even maybe legal, to link to the original source. Yahoo can not claim innocence as they know only too well the value of something like this to the original author, and have the resources to get a link to the original writing.I would think an attorney could have a field day with a suit claiming damages to a writer when their content, in any form. is published on Yahoo without attribution and a link? I read Andy's article and that really seems out of line. I think a site like Yahoo should NEVER republish content of any amount without a link back to the ORIGINAL author. Even if the site Yahoo gets their story from neglected the link, Yahoo has an obligation, moral and ethical, if even maybe legal, to link to the original source. Yahoo can not claim innocence as they know only too well the value of something like this to the original author, and have the resources to get a link to the original writing.I would think an attorney could have a field day with a suit claiming damages to a writer when their content, in any form. is published on Yahoo without attribution and a link?

]]> By: Andy Beard http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-64320 Andy Beard Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:49:05 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-64320 Well I find more problem with someone like the Associated Press take the content from a site, thin it down and don't provide a link, then syndicate it glogbally as a top10 instead of a top100 http://andybeard.eu/2007/03/are-yahoo-guilty-of-unethical-plagiarism-with-syndicated-content.html Even worse the Yahoo article was the one that gained massive traffic from Digg, and 100s of links. That is long term financial damage If someone subscribes to a summary, they know it is a summary and can follow the link to the original article to clarify facts. I honestly have more problems with sharing with Google Reader than someone creating summaries of my content for easier consumption. Well I find more problem with someone like the Associated Press take the content from a site, thin it down and don’t provide a link, then syndicate it glogbally as a top10 instead of a top100

http://andybeard.eu/2007/03/are-yahoo-guilty-of-unethical-plagiarism-with-syndicated-content.html

Even worse the Yahoo article was the one that gained massive traffic from Digg, and 100s of links.

That is long term financial damage

If someone subscribes to a summary, they know it is a summary and can follow the link to the original article to clarify facts.

I honestly have more problems with sharing with Google Reader than someone creating summaries of my content for easier consumption.

]]> By: Andy Beard http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-121207 Andy Beard Wed, 19 Sep 2007 19:49:05 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-121207 Well I find more problem with someone like the Associated Press take the content from a site, thin it down and don't provide a link, then syndicate it glogbally as a top10 instead of a top100<br><br><a href="http://andybeard.eu/2007/03/are-yahoo-guilty-of-unethical-plagiarism-with-syndicated-content.html">http://andybeard.eu/2007/03/are-yahoo-guilty-of...</a><br><br>Even worse the Yahoo article was the one that gained massive traffic from Digg, and 100s of links.<br><br>That is long term financial damage<br><br>If someone subscribes to a summary, they know it is a summary and can follow the link to the original article to clarify facts.<br><br>I honestly have more problems with sharing with Google Reader than someone creating summaries of my content for easier consumption. Well I find more problem with someone like the Associated Press take the content from a site, thin it down and don’t provide a link, then syndicate it glogbally as a top10 instead of a top100

http://andybeard.eu/2007/03/are-yahoo-guilty-of…

Even worse the Yahoo article was the one that gained massive traffic from Digg, and 100s of links.

That is long term financial damage

If someone subscribes to a summary, they know it is a summary and can follow the link to the original article to clarify facts.

I honestly have more problems with sharing with Google Reader than someone creating summaries of my content for easier consumption.

]]> By: JB http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/comment-page-1/#comment-64317 JB Wed, 19 Sep 2007 18:20:57 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/14/rss-brief-another-scrapingspam-threat/#comment-64317 Steve, I'm glad to see that I"m not the only one that sees some serious problems with this service. Of course, I didn't even think about the defamation issue. That could be a very serious problem. If it summarized the sentence "I am not a plagiarist" into "I am a plagiarist" or something to that effect, it could be a major problem, I completely agree. I have to wonder if the makers of this service really thought the legal implications through. Steve,

I’m glad to see that I”m not the only one that sees some serious problems with this service. Of course, I didn’t even think about the defamation issue. That could be a very serious problem.

If it summarized the sentence “I am not a plagiarist” into “I am a plagiarist” or something to that effect, it could be a major problem, I completely agree.

I have to wonder if the makers of this service really thought the legal implications through.

]]>