83 replies to this topic

[Scottie]

I hope you and your friends in this forum are not going to tell every mash up software owner that he's doing wrong because there are so many of them that you'll have no time to do your job.

If they start sending me spam emails telling me I can use their tools to create pages for SEO, I certainly will tell them what I think.

I believe in equal opportunity for email spammers and content thieves who contact me personally.

[zeevveez]

Arlen,


I'm a slow learner, but I like your suggestions and implement them in the near future.

I thank all the members of this forum for their patience with me all along this long discussion and for helping me see the light. Meanwhile I'll ask you not to use QTsaver and not to tell about it to your friends.

[Jill]

Meanwhile I'll ask you not to use QTsaver and not to tell about it to your friends.

No worries there.

[btreloar]

In addition to the software-abetted mixing and matching of sentences and paragraphs to steal content, I've found many web sites just steal the whole article intact. Articles I've had published on Entrepreneur.com have been stolen by dozens of web sites.

Most of them also steal the "about the author" blurb with my contact information and links to my web site, so I turn a blind eye to those. But those that fail to provide credit need to be taken to task. One even added a credit line that said "By Dr. B, Staff Writer"!

In most cases I've found them responsive, and in the few cases where they haven't been, I turned them in to Google, which shut down their AdSense accounts until the problem got fixed.

I use Google News's News Alert feature to find these culprits. I have a standing alert to be notified anytime Google finds a particularly unusual phrase from each of my articles.

Another tip: I'm not sure how essential this is, but my son (an IP lawyer in NYC) insisted that I submit my articles to the US Copyright Office and get them officially registered. It costs $30 apiece, and will be worth it I'm sure, if it ever becomes essential.

Bill

[Jill]

In addition to the software-abetted mixing and matching of sentences and paragraphs to steal content, I've found many web sites just steal the whole article intact.

Yep, that was mentioned at the beginning of this thread, and we do have many other threads  stolen copy[/hr]. Let's keep this particular thread, however, on these automated infringing methods where they only take bits and pieces and try to call it an article.

[Saalin]

I am author of a tool that is able to produce Markov's chains from any content . This tool produce any amount of text from substantial original content that contain only pairs of words from original text and these pairs of words are follows the rules of the language used as input. I am wondering if my tool also violates copyrigh protection laws?

I am no lawyer, so take this statement with a grain of salt. It also of course depends on the country you are residing in and its specific regulations. Based on my understanding it's not violating anyone's copyrights.

Why it could be a violation:
It is based on someone other's content. Derivative? Far fetched I think. The components that you use are not copyrighted (words - just like colors, elements, etc.). Or trademarks: Your software might be using (maybe even promoting that use?) trademarked terms. That could cause trouble.

Why I think it's not:
No creative work is being stolen or misused. Unless you consider the mere words and the number of how often they were used a creative work.

If this procedure is illegal, that would be a nightmare for all courts responsible for it. It would be impossible to proof and if you take some variations into account (as I described them earlier) it would be very hard to determine who's work it actually was that was violated.

But for you, this likely doesn't matter.

Unless you make a really significant profit from your tool, you don't want this to go to court. What would I define a significant profit? Enough, so you don't mind spending the money on a legal consultation by a IPR specialized lawyer.

I am not sure where you are from. In some countries, you could expect the first thing you hear from someone is a letter from a lawyer - and $2000 legal fee (and that's only for the "cease and desist" letter). You don't pay it - it goes to court. No friendly e-mails or one-time warnings.

Providing the service without consultation is risky in my opinion. It's like the lottery, jsut the other way round: Every week you make a small profit. On the unlikely chance that your number is being drawn - hurray. You are now bankrupt.

Edited by Saalin, 13 March 2006 - 03:36 AM.

[projectphp]

It is based on someone other's content, it would be very hard to determine who's work it actually was that was violated. If this procedure is illegal, that would be a nightmare for all courts responsible for it. Don't pay it - it goes to court.

Does the above now qualify as a post for me, or did I rip you off

[Saalin]

ProjectPHP,

It was a ripp off. And you will get sued for it

Can I please get an address ?

Seriously, good move. Do you want me to say that you posted meaningless garbage that doesn't make sense? Argh, that would haunt me since all you posted were parts of my post ;-).

If you would cut&paste to create your own post that would make sense and claim it to be your work that would be a rip-off. Random sentences (or words) probably don't qualify =).

Edited by Saalin, 13 March 2006 - 05:08 AM.

[qwerty]

If I can be permitted to throw a wrench (or a spanner, if you insist) into the works, could a Dadaist poem be deemed copyright infringement?