<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Is the DiggBar Content Theft?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/</link>
	<description>Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 09:14:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: New CEO for Digg; Shut Down DiggBar, Unban Domains &#124; eNewsz.com</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-130331</link>
		<dc:creator>New CEO for Digg; Shut Down DiggBar, Unban Domains &#124; eNewsz.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jul 2010 12:58:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-130331</guid>
		<description>[...] unlike with other URL shorteners, the link was not simply redirected to the source.This led to accusations of content theft against the DiggBar. Especially worrisome was the potential search engine implications as, at least [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] unlike with other URL shorteners, the link was not simply redirected to the source.This led to accusations of content theft against the DiggBar. Especially worrisome was the potential search engine implications as, at least [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: DiggBar to Be Killed &#124; PlagiarismToday</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129938</link>
		<dc:creator>DiggBar to Be Killed &#124; PlagiarismToday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:28:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-129938</guid>
		<description>[...] unlike with other URL shorteners, the link was not simply redirected to the source.This led to accusations of content theft against the DiggBar. Especially worrisome was the potential search engine implications as, at least [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] unlike with other URL shorteners, the link was not simply redirected to the source.This led to accusations of content theft against the DiggBar. Especially worrisome was the potential search engine implications as, at least [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Samuel Koh</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-129528</link>
		<dc:creator>Samuel Koh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 15 Feb 2010 03:47:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-129528</guid>
		<description>The funny thing about the evolution of business is that majority of advances happen within the realm of such controversy. Without piracy, I wonder if Microsoft would be where they are today. It would be a rather easy thing for MS to protect their office suite to prevent piracy. But they did not. Those who did so successfully, went into oblivion.

On one hand, one can say that without social sharing mechanisms, (iframes in this case) the discovery of many other sites would have been impended. On the other hand, if you are as big as washington post, you&#039;d have more to protect. But if I&#039;m a budding blogger hungry from exposure, I&#039;d say please come and frame me.

Also, for people who want to share about other sites, it is a pain to link to another site and lose exposure of their own in the process.

For the overall good of the web, I&#039;d say that iframe should be good as a social sharing tool. Albeit I also think that there should be some good practice guidelines. Perhaps showing ads on the referring iframe should not be encouraged. But if its for maintaining the original presence, it should be good. Do it like Google or themeforest.net where an option to close the iframe is provided. I believe this is fair. On many occasions, I do close the iframe because the content was good for more discovery.

If content is good, the rest are lesser issues really. This is the web! Let it be.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The funny thing about the evolution of business is that majority of advances happen within the realm of such controversy. Without piracy, I wonder if Microsoft would be where they are today. It would be a rather easy thing for MS to protect their office suite to prevent piracy. But they did not. Those who did so successfully, went into oblivion.</p>
<p>On one hand, one can say that without social sharing mechanisms, (iframes in this case) the discovery of many other sites would have been impended. On the other hand, if you are as big as washington post, you&#8217;d have more to protect. But if I&#8217;m a budding blogger hungry from exposure, I&#8217;d say please come and frame me.</p>
<p>Also, for people who want to share about other sites, it is a pain to link to another site and lose exposure of their own in the process.</p>
<p>For the overall good of the web, I&#8217;d say that iframe should be good as a social sharing tool. Albeit I also think that there should be some good practice guidelines. Perhaps showing ads on the referring iframe should not be encouraged. But if its for maintaining the original presence, it should be good. Do it like Google or themeforest.net where an option to close the iframe is provided. I believe this is fair. On many occasions, I do close the iframe because the content was good for more discovery.</p>
<p>If content is good, the rest are lesser issues really. This is the web! Let it be.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Its not about you &#171; Here&#8217;s the Thing</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-128622</link>
		<dc:creator>Its not about you &#171; Here&#8217;s the Thing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 12 Oct 2009 03:25:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-128622</guid>
		<description>[...] You can also check out some relatively unflattering things John Gruber, ToMuse, DailyBlogTips, Plagiarism Today had to say about the similarly-implemented Digg [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] You can also check out some relatively unflattering things John Gruber, ToMuse, DailyBlogTips, Plagiarism Today had to say about the similarly-implemented Digg [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: 3 Reasons Why Breaking DiggBar Increases Website Traffic</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-128586</link>
		<dc:creator>3 Reasons Why Breaking DiggBar Increases Website Traffic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:25:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-128586</guid>
		<description>[...] users and publishers as to why frames are a very bad idea. From a publisher&#8217;s standpoint, the framing of one&#8217;s website by another is considered both unethical and illegal. It effectively steals content, traffic, and potential revenue from the original content owner. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] users and publishers as to why frames are a very bad idea. From a publisher&#8217;s standpoint, the framing of one&#8217;s website by another is considered both unethical and illegal. It effectively steals content, traffic, and potential revenue from the original content owner. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Frame Spammers Digg, Facebook Hijack Web: Your Help Needed</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-128585</link>
		<dc:creator>Frame Spammers Digg, Facebook Hijack Web: Your Help Needed</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 00:24:46 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-128585</guid>
		<description>[...] SearchEngineJournal and PlagiarismToday posted articles condemning offenders such as Digg, Facebook, Krumlr, and HootSuite for the use of [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] SearchEngineJournal and PlagiarismToday posted articles condemning offenders such as Digg, Facebook, Krumlr, and HootSuite for the use of [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digg Does it Again &#124; PlagiarismToday</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-127007</link>
		<dc:creator>Digg Does it Again &#124; PlagiarismToday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 21 Jul 2009 17:12:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-127007</guid>
		<description>[...] in April of this year Digg introduced a URL shortening services that caused a great deal of controversy. The problem was that, unlike other URL shorteners that simply redirected the user to the actual [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] in April of this year Digg introduced a URL shortening services that caused a great deal of controversy. The problem was that, unlike other URL shorteners that simply redirected the user to the actual [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Digg Relents on DiggBar &#124; PlagiarismToday</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-125298</link>
		<dc:creator>Digg Relents on DiggBar &#124; PlagiarismToday</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 Apr 2009 16:45:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-125298</guid>
		<description>[...] a post on the official Digg blog, John Quinn has announced several changes to the controversial DiggBar, including two changes that are aimed at appeasing Webmasters upset with the bar appearing on their [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] a post on the official Digg blog, John Quinn has announced several changes to the controversial DiggBar, including two changes that are aimed at appeasing Webmasters upset with the bar appearing on their [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: willfleiss (Will Fleiss)</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-131974</link>
		<dc:creator>willfleiss (Will Fleiss)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 20:33:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-131974</guid>
		<description>&quot;Is DiggBar Content Theft?&quot; http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Is DiggBar Content Theft?&#8221; <a href="http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: willfleiss (Will Fle</title>
		<link>http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/07/is-the-diggbar-content-theft/comment-page-1/#comment-125252</link>
		<dc:creator>willfleiss (Will Fle</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Apr 2009 15:33:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3174#comment-125252</guid>
		<description>&quot;Is DiggBar Content Theft?&quot; &lt;a href=&quot;http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq&lt;/a&gt; </description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&quot;Is DiggBar Content Theft?&quot; <a href="http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq" rel="nofollow">http://tinyurl.com/crwuaq</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Page Caching using disk: enhanced

Served from: www.plagiarismtoday.com @ 2012-02-13 17:04:06 -->
