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.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “How Big A Problem Is Blog Plagiarism?”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Anonymous Coward says:

No Subject Given

Here is another way to look at it. One site creates their own content by using 90% cut-paste verbatim from another site’s content, without so much of giving credit to where the original content came from? (I’m sure plenty of kids in middle school did this in their history, literature…etc classes).

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.

BlueBerry Pick'n (user link) says:

Re: Content & distribution: some unsuitable for child

A blog with original content is hard. Cheating is easy.

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.

BlueBerry Pick’n is ThisCanadian
“Silent Freedom is Freedom Silenced”

Frank J. McCourry says:

No Subject Given

If you don’t want you private information published publicly, then don’t publish it publicly. If you want paid for your source code, don’t publish it.

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….

Marc (user link) says:

Re: No Subject Given

“BLOG’s are a complete waste of valuable webserver space anyway.”

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.”

t3knomanser (user link) says:


I came here from memeorandum, which is another site profitting from your content. That’s how the blogosphere works.

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.

Jonathan (user link) says:

Just a Note...

I’ve noticed that a few people seem to be confused here so I thought I’d take a moment to clear the air.

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…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop ยป

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...