Bloggers create Press Plagiarist Of The Year Award 217
mccalli writes "The BBC is reporting that certain bloggers, fed up of seeing their work just lifted by the mainstream press, have created The Press Plagiarist Of The Year award. Examples are given of national newspapers simply cutting and pasting entire articles from web sites and passing them off as their own."
this is VERY serious! (Score:5, Funny)
I absolutely agree! Here's my take on it:
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously. Earnest discussions in academia are all very well, but who are the guilty ones? Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism. Similar stories on subjects eliciting similar comments do not pass this test, since even lazy journalists can have the same ideas as brilliant bloggers.
I agree, too! (Score:4, Funny)
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously. Earnest discussions in academia are all very well, but who are the guilty ones? Let Guido remind you of the nomination criteria: a story has to be pinched from an original blog source, either verbatim or in essence, and no credit / payment given to the original source. This qualifies as plagiarism. Similar stories on subjects eliciting similar comments do not pass this test, since even lazy journalists can have the same ideas as brilliant bloggers.
And this is what copyright is for. (Score:5, Informative)
It also qualifies as copyright violation. This is PRECICELY what copyright is for.
Under the Berne convention and laws implementing it, such postings are born copyrighted, notice or no. Verbatim lifting of the entire text, or the bulk of it, is not fair use.
And while a net posting is intended to be read, it's intended to be read on the original site and in its original context. Posting may imply consent for the copying necessary for viewing, network cacheing, linking, and probably indexing and archiving. But it doesn't imply permission to copy it into a commercial (or even non-commercial) news medium without either payment or credit.
When the intent is just to get the news out and such copying would thus be welcomed, the author can explicitly waive his rights or grant additional permissions under stated terms by a footnote license or declaration. (Indeed, such grants are common - Public Domain, open document, quote-with-credit, etc.) In the absense of such a grant, copyright applies full force.
Such an author may receive only small or intangible benefit from his posting in its original place. Such benefits might be reputation, increased public influence, or in increase in traffic to a web site driving advertising revenue or advancing some other purpose of the site. But that doesn't mean copying his material does little damage. If the item is newsworthy and sufficiently well-formed for publication, it is as potentially saleable to news outlets as similar output from a person who makes his living as a reporter. This revenue is denied the author if the publisher simply copies the text without payment - or a reporter passes it off as his own work, receiving his paycheck while the author gets nothing.
Under copyright it is the author's right to demand whatever payment he wants and refuse permission unless agreement is reached. And if a publisher copies his work without permission, it is his right to sue for the damages - including the price he might have reasonably negotiated - and for a statutory minimum if he can't prove a higher amount is due.
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously.
I should hope the publishers are taking this seriously, too. They're the ones with their necks on the legal block. Every winner of this award (and every nominee) is a potential loser of a big lawsuit. And if the first one isn't open-and-shut, once it's one the rest will be.
The irony, of course, is that it's the same media corporations that make such a screech about "piracy" of their entertainment content that operate the publications where this infringement is taking place. If they don't want to be hoist on their own petard they need to do some serious housecleaning among their own operations.
= = = = =
And before the peanut gallery opens up with some snide comments claiming hypocracy on the part of slashdot posters, let me point out a few things:
1) I'm not stating a personal opinion about what's RIGHT in the above. I'm just pointing out my understanding of the CURRENT LAW. (Note: IANAL.)
2) The posters on this forum, and the members of movements commonly associated with it, are individuals with varying opinions. And there are multiple groups with differing consensus opinions hanging out here as well. Different posters with different opinions do not make the forum hypocritical.
3) "Intellectual Property" (government limitations on ideas, their expression, and their use) is not a unified all-or-nothing issue. There are a host of component parts. (Examples: Copyright versus patent. Length of protection. Extent of protection (what constitutes "fair use"). What is covered (software, "look-and-feel", public performance, N-note-
Re:And this is what copyright is for. (Score:4, Funny)
It also qualifies as copyright violation. This is PRECICELY what copyright is for.
Under the Berne convention and laws implementing it, such postings are born copyrighted, notice or no. Verbatim lifting of the entire text, or the bulk of it, is not fair use.
And while a net posting is intended to be read, it's intended to be read on the original site and in its original context. Posting may imply consent for the copying necessary for viewing, network cacheing, linking, and probably indexing and archiving. But it doesn't imply permission to copy it into a commercial (or even non-commercial) news medium without either payment or credit.
When the intent is just to get the news out and such copying would thus be welcomed, the author can explicitly waive his rights or grant additional permissions under stated terms by a footnote license or declaration. (Indeed, such grants are common - Public Domain, open document, quote-with-credit, etc.) In the absense of such a grant, copyright applies full force.
Such an author may receive only small or intangible benefit from his posting in its original place. Such benefits might be reputation, increased public influence, or in increase in traffic to a web site driving advertising revenue or advancing some other purpose of the site. But that doesn't mean copying his material does little damage. If the item is newsworthy and sufficiently well-formed for publication, it is as potentially saleable to news outlets as similar output from a person who makes his living as a reporter. This revenue is denied the author if the publisher simply copies the text without payment - or a reporter passes it off as his own work, receiving his paycheck while the author gets nothing.
Under copyright it is the author's right to demand whatever payment he wants and refuse permission unless agreement is reached. And if a publisher copies his work without permission, it is his right to sue for the damages - including the price he might have reasonably negotiated - and for a statutory minimum if he can't prove a higher amount is due.
Lots of people have been taking this very seriously, well media studies students are taking this seriously.
I should hope the publishers are taking this seriously, too. They're the ones with their necks on the legal block. Every winner of this award (and every nominee) is a potential loser of a big lawsuit. And if the first one isn't open-and-shut, once it's one the rest will be.
The irony, of course, is that it's the same media corporations that make such a screech about "piracy" of their entertainment content that operate the publications where this infringement is taking place. If they don't want to be hoist on their own petard they need to do some serious housecleaning among their own operations.
= = = = =
And before the peanut gallery opens up with some snide comments claiming hypocracy on the part of slashdot posters, let me point out a few things:
1) I'm not stating a personal opinion about what's RIGHT in the above. I'm just pointing out my understanding of the CURRENT LAW. (Note: IANAL.)
2) The posters on this forum, and the members of movements commonly associated with it, are individuals with varying opinions. And there are multiple groups with differing consensus opinions hanging out here as well. Different posters with different opinions do not make the forum hypocritical.
3) "Intellectual Property" (government limitations on ideas, their expression, and their use) is not a unified all-or-nothing issue. There are a host of component parts. (Examples: Copyright versus patent. Length of protection. Extent of protection (what constitutes "fair use"). What is covered (software, "look-and-feel", public performance, N-note-sequences, .
I'm more optimistic (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Blogging will be outlawed
or
2) Megabucks Media incorporated will lift stories with impunity... then sue the living daylights out of whatever damn fool Blogger originally put up the work.. ."
As to (1), how do you figure blogging will be outlawed? Blogging is really just a form of writing, with distribution via the Internet. The newsmedia is already being forced to change how they do business, based on what bloggers have been doing. Thousands if not millions of people freely express their opinions online without any trouble, and given that outlawing blogging would be akin to outlawing newspapers, there is no way news media professionals would get behind such a prohibition anyway. They depend on freedom of speech, and they know restricting it would run counter to their own interests. Beyond that, even if they were interested in outlawing blogging somehow, even the most righteous social conservative would be firmly opposed to this. For every muck-raking blog, there is a dittohead blog. The Bush Administration is having a tough enough time selling its own party on its main agenda items these days. Attempting to outlaw blogs would be an absurd diversion that would quickly get shot down.
As to your second assumption, news organizations have to sell to advertisers and the public. It's how they stay alive. They know that if they were to actually countersue a blogger, when they were the plagiarists, the truth would out. They still have to sell ad space. They still have to convince people reading or watching the news that they follow ethical guidelines. Look at the damage that has been done to the NYT with all of their recent high-profile ethics problems. One news outfit might sue a blogger, but if they're in the wrong, the courts will find for the blogger. The legal system has its problems, but it is not so screwed up that little guys can't win when the facts are in their favor. The hit to credibility in such a case would be huge, and all of the other mainstream media companies would act as quickly as possible to distance themselves from that sort of behavior.
Civil liberties have been taking a hit for the last four years, but the Bill of Rights still has force. Plus, judging by the opinion polls, even the voters who brought Bush into office are starting to realize that his fear-based policies don't make any sense. I think Americans are easily swayed in the short term, but in the long term they won't buy the argument that dissent must be muzzled and big business should get its way regardless of the consequences.
Re:I'm more optimistic (Score:3, Insightful)
I use a brain. See, Blogging is writing and giving it away. Open Source is programming and giving it away. MP3s through Knapster is giving music away. Any time any type of content is given away, the corporation that's been selling the same kind of content sees their profit margin threatened. They strike back by trying to have the free source shut off. Have we learned *nothing* from the past twelve months of Slashdot alone?
They know that if they were to actuall
Read the articles to get it (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It should have been obvious (Score:5, Funny)
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm still baffled by the concept that anyone still thinks you can say anything meaningful about the content of a blog beyond "it's a series of articles presented in a chronological order".
When you say something like you did, what do you picture as "blogs"? Teenage diaries? Summaries of news from elsewhere? In-depth technical articles? Personal opinions about various topics? The content could be anything. The term "blog" merely refers to how it is structured and updated. So attempting to pass judgement on the quality of the content of "blogs" is meaningless.
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:3, Funny)
Blog is short for weblog. A weblog is a journal (or newsletter) that is frequently updated and intended for general public consumption. Blogs generally represent the personality of the author or the Web site.
As you can see, a blog is more than a chronological series of articles. A blog is a "frequently updated journal" typically meant to convey or "represent" the site or author's personality. In other words, a blog is a medium by which attention whores and self-involved twits can express
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:4, Interesting)
Just because somebody or some entity (corporation, organization e.g. Google Blog, IE Blog, Mozillazine, etc.) picks a blog as the medium to communicate to the world doesn't make their information or opinions any more worthless than some attention whore / self-involved twit / sellout who decided to publish a book or write a magazine article. It really irritates me when people (usually old people) disregard any information that came from the "interweb" and wasn't published on paper. Look, the medium is irrelevant to content. Sure there are bad blogs that are as you described, I'll even concede that it's the vast majority of them (livejournal/myspace), but the medium is relatively new and there are a number of very quality blogs on a wide variety of topics that are informative and worth reading. But then if you think about it, is the ratio of bad blogs to good blogs any worse than the ratio of bad to good books or magazines or tv shows or newspapers?
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
If you click on that definition, you'll see that Google merely spidered it from some random website [bytowninternet.com]. Read some of the other definitions for blog [google.com] that Google have spidered, and you'll see that the ego part of that definition is by no means commonly accepted.
I'm not disputing that blogs are generally personal endeavours, but to make sweeping generalisations ab
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:3, Insightful)
That's simply not true. I gave examples earlier. Do you think somebody who writes about web development is "saying basically the same thing" about somebody writing about politics? Do you think those people are "saying basically the same thing" as the teenager writing about what happened to them in school that day?
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
And probably to, and with, some of the more clique factions of the internet. Not Slashdotters, but techies in general. We probably have one of the largest invented vocabularies of any feild.
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:5, Insightful)
>A blog's text is written and controlled by an individual
No - some (most?) blogs are written by an individual. There are plenty of blogs that are run by a team.
> Contrast the blog, centered topically on its own maintainer
No. A blog is centered on the maintainer or the interests of its maintainer.
There are political blogs, technical blogs, blogs about movies, blogs about books, blocks about knitting, blogs about pretty much anything. A blog is not necesarliy a personal diary.
And guess what - slashdot is centred topically on the interests of its maintainers.
The topics are not selected by its readers, they are suggested by its readers. The maintainers select suggested stories, or post their own, and often include their own comentary.
There have also been plenty of "focused on the maintainer" posts in the past. From Taco's proposal, through to recently, Taco ranting about having is WoW character name banned.
There has also been plenty of self-indulgent comentary, just look back for any of John Katz's articles.
I think people confuse online diaries and blogs too much. An online diary is often a type of web log, but it is _not_ the only definition, and never has been.
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
Considering your generalization of blogs and obviously unitiated point of view, I find it baffling that you would have anything worth quoting or referencing in any publication other than Jack Ass Monthly.
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
I'm still baffled by the concept that anyone with a blog would say anything even remotely worth plagiarizing.
Here's [msdn.com] a bunch of stuff worth plagiarizing
Re:this is VERY serious! (Score:2)
So if you bloged on a website that expanded on your previously published works in a more chatty tone and give ongoing examples of where your ideas were correct, it would be utter rubbish not worth plagerizing? Bloggers vary from hacks putting out opinonated and unsubstantiated tripe, to authors publishing well documented insightful works just like dead-tree publications. Maybe you're just reading th
But... (Score:5, Funny)
Where's our "favourite"? (Score:3, Insightful)
after all, Roland Pipsqueak could have been a contender! [/rocky balboa]
Re:Where's our "favourite"? (Score:2)
(pun).
Re:Where's our "favourite"? (Score:2)
For all those who obviously don't know, Roland (I think the last name is actually Piquille or something like that) is famous on Slashdot for copying text from original sources directly onto his blog and submitting Slashdot articles to generate ad revenue without citing sources.
Of course ... it's so clear now (Score:5, Funny)
It's scary how fast this can happen, too (Score:3, Interesting)
It's really scary how fast a story can spread through the media, too.
In my spare time, I happen to do the publicity for a local sports club. Someone gave a comment to a media rep a few weeks ago, saying that we were hiring a full-time coach for the first time. We don't know exactly where the story originated; it wasn't any of the executive committee, nor the coach concerned, so presumably came from a not-particularly-well-informed club member.
That wound up on the AP wire, and within 24 hours, it had mad
Don't award them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Don't award them (Score:2)
Exactly what copyright is for
Who said copyright is obsolete in the digital age?
Re:Don't award them (Score:2, Insightful)
Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:5, Interesting)
About two years ago there was a BBC article that stated some incorrect things about angular momentum, and me being a stickler for proper use of Physics terms, contacted the author. He stated that I was wrong and he "knew" it was correct because he had got the information from the researchers. I contacted the researchers, which were NOT listed in the article nor on the page anywhere, after being given their contact info by the BBC reporter. They agreed with me that the use of the term was incorrect but gave some reasons for why they thought it would be easier for the laymen to understand. They also pointed me to their press release on the subject. Lo and behold if their press release was not taken word for word and put on the BBC and tagged with a different author. When I brought this to the attention of the BBC reporter he started ignoring me.
Main stream media has been taking the content they choose and calling it their own for some time. Unfortunatly there doesn't seem to be anyway of controlling this because the media has a vested interest maintaining the status quo.
Well that ends my rant.
Wait a minute... (Score:2)
Why Journalists Copy Press Releases (Score:5, Insightful)
The author of the press release has no problem with you copying his or her material. In fact, he or she would prefer it. Press releases are worded in the best possible terms for the company sending them out. So some journalists see no problem using that material. And this isn't plagiarism (technically) since the author of the press release understands and, indeed, hopes it will happen (OED definition of plagiarism: "the wrongful appropriation or purloining, and publication as one's own, of the ideas, or the expression of the ideas (literary, artistic, musical, mechanical, etc.) of another."). Sometimes journalists borrow certain descriptions because the authors, being authorities on the topic (or at least having access to authorities on the topic), know how to phrase things in the most accurate terms.
I, as well as most journalists, don't do this and, in fact, look down on it. But some see no problem with it. And technically it's not plagiarism.
And also, most good journalists, if they do this, will append the statement with "according to the company's press release" which I consider to be an acceptable practice if used sparingly with subjects, such as scientific terminology, that can lose meaning in the translation from the press release to the journalist's writing.
Sorry for the long post, but I thought you'd be interested.
Re:Why Journalists Copy Press Releases (Score:2)
Repeat after me, publishing press releases as your own work is not journalism. I know full well that is the POINT of press releases-get specific i
Re:Why Journalists Copy Press Releases (Score:2)
Now if I were publishing a press release, and a journalist copied it verbatim into a story, I'd be happy. If I were a journalist, and I knew I could send my edi
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:3, Interesting)
That was most likely not plagarism. The company that made that press release most likely paid that reporter to pass it off as legitimate journalism [paulgraham.com].
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:2)
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:2)
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:2)
The reporter got caught not doing his (or her) job. He's lazy and incompetent and in most news organizations would get severely repremanded for it -- ye
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:2)
It's not strictly "plagarism" because companies and groups that put out press releases HOPE that their release and info gets picked up. A press release won't have "copyright" just for this reason.
It's still copyrighted, amd regardless of PD issues, stamping your name on somebody else's work is always plaigarism.
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, wire services will refuse to run something if it has a copyright statement attached to it. If you put something out on a wire service, you pretty much are saying, "go ahead, copy at will." I think it's kind of a gray area but, if you're putting something out on a wire service, you want the material to be spread around and aren't going to sue anyone for lifting it. I'd bet the wire service would take issue if you did sue.
I once sent out an image with a news release. In the metadata of the image w
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:2, Informative)
Plagiarism is not copying without permission. It is the act of intentionally passing off another person's work as your own. It is based on ethics rather than law.
If Student X writes a term paper for a class, and X helps Y to pass off sections of this paper as if it were his own work, then Y is a plagiarist (and X
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
That said, it would be a good thing for reporters to do a little fact-checking. We've never lied in any of our press releases, but since nobody ever checked on any of them, I could have said I just got elected King of Siam and they'd run it...
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Not just taken from Bloggers (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it that those that understand least start their posts with that phrase? Copying a press release in its entirety is perfectly ok. It is not ok to copy it and change the attribution from AP or Reuters to George the Reporter. The issue raised by the GP is not about copying the press release. It is about attributions.
Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:5, Insightful)
Bloggers can make their money from ad revenue (adsense and the like), subscriptions and donations. A good blogger can easily make a low 5-figure income if they're good about consistency. Blogger information tends to be very real-time (even non-editorial pieces). Few bloggers publish book-style information, although this is growing. The audience of a blogger is sometimes one-time visitors, but the goal is repeat visitors. Blogs without repeat visitors in my opinion are failures (but this is disputable).
I believe that google or a competitor is on the verge of "This page is almost identical to" style cross-linking. If an online newspaper posts an exact copy of a blog, or a book author rips off a paragraph from another, the browser toolbars will make short work of noticing it. We are very close with search engine heuristic research to take bigger snapshots than just "completely naked MILF" search tags.
For a blogger to get copied without recognition, I can understand the anger. A newspaper stole their information! So what. The newspaper is dead. All a blogger has to do is mention who is quoted them (verbatim in some cases) and use it to build their following. Sure, being quoted in print might make it hard to find, and if you aren't referenced, then the paper is making income from your work, but NO newspaper could exist for very long strictly on "robbing" content.
Take advantage of the free press even if they don't mention you. Bloggers have something similar to a newspaper in proving they wrote it first: caching search engines and "look backwards" web archives. All you need to do is make sure your blog is getting captured, and you can easily prove to your visitors that you've been quoted in the Floor Avenue Journal.
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
Unauthorized copying and distributing of intellectual property is generally a Federal crime... And probably even far worse when done for a profit...
Media companies (of all types) seem to be getting their way that copyright protection is essential to their business model... If they are violating their own laws, then I say let them taste their own medicine!
Forget dreams of recongition.... If the front page of NYT was copied of
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:4, Insightful)
Because the bloger "profits" by his words getting out there, even without recognition. I'd love to mention on my blog being copied by a powerful paper that forgot to credit me.
Unauthorized copying and distributing of intellectual property is generally a Federal crime... And probably even far worse when done for a profit...
I'm against copyright laws. If a company with ten floors of an office building and ten million dollars of print equipment "steals" my work, I would use it to my advantage to self-promote. The newspaper industry is a dying breed, these maneuvers are just proof of that.
Media companies (of all types) seem to be getting their way that copyright protection is essential to their business model... If they are violating their own laws, then I say let them taste their own medicine!
Copyright may have been important until 1990. The Internet allows instant cutting, pasting, linking and RSS pulls. Information has almost zero cost, infinite supply and low demand. Supply and demands dictating a price of zero. The fact that writers can still make money is proof that the information alone isn't the profit maker -- the layout, consistency and accuracy add just as much.
If the front page of NYT was copied off your blog, you wouldn't sue? Just think of the paper sales, advertisement revenue, and national recongition they they are getting from *your* work.
I think of my overhead versus theirs and would be ecstatic for the added publicity to my readers. There is no value in one article. I sell the package and the future.
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
What added publicity? If youre not getting credit, people might start to believe that you were the one plagerizing.
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:3, Insightful)
Except that they'd slap someone else's name on it, and you'd look like a nut claiming it was yours.
And you'd have no recourse. They'd get all the credit and all the money.
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
I'm against copyright laws. If a company with ten floors of an office building and ten million dollars of print equipment "steals" my work, I would use it to my advantage to self-promote. The newspaper industry is a dying breed, these maneuvers are just proof of that.
What happens when they sue you for copyright infringement?
Copyright may have been important until 1990. The Internet allows instant cutting, pasting, linking and RSS pulls. Information has almost zero cost, infinite supply and low demand.
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:3, Interesting)
If they had the chutzpah to do that, it wouldn't be hard to show that the article was up on your own site first. You could point to a cached version at Google or the Wayback Machine, for example.
That's why copyright is important - when the cost of duplication is zero, the only way to stop someone from ripping off your work is with a legal club.
When the cost of duplication is zero, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "ripping off". The copy that'
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
If they had the chutzpah to do that, it wouldn't be hard to show that the article was up on your own site first. You could point to a cached version at Google or the Wayback Machine, for example.
Are you forgetting the army of lawyers they would have? I doubt you could afford to defend yourself.
When the cost of duplication is zero, it doesn't make much sense to talk about "ripping off". The copy that's on a newspaper's web site doesn't detract from the copy that's on your own web site.
Bullshit. It sti
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
Also, if you are not attributed, then how does this ever reflect back on you? And with the amount of pulp media
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
The GP's point seems to be that it's not important for bloggers to "enforce their rights", since they can exploit such copying to their own ends more effectively than newspapers can exploit such copy-and-pasting to suit theirs. Therefore, the blogger needs no legal protections from the state -- they already have the upper hand in a copyright-free world.
Jasin NataelRe:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
The information itself is worthless without packaging, distribution, marketing and performance support. Bands get nearly $0 from album sales or good reason -- the actual data is worth the least.
Speaking of search heuristics... (Score:2)
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
Correct. And one slip up isn't going to crucify anyone. Yet if blogger after blogger posts on their site "Hey! The New Arkansas Tribune copied my post from 3 weeks ago verbatim and forgot to mention me" then the New Arkansas Tribune WILL lose credibility. This "award" showing from the "bloggers" is a great idea -- why use the law when you can use the penalty?
People who steal the work of others will lose business. There is no law needed to pr
Re:Bloggers should ignore copyright (Score:2)
Lose credibility with who? The only people who would know are the ones that are already reading the blog. Also, why would the newspaper lose credibility? The story is the story, essentially you just become an unpaid news correspondent.
People who steal the work of others will lose business. There is no law
Bloggers stole the stories -- with a time machine! (Score:5, Funny)
Obviously the bloggers have stolen the stories from the mainstream media, then traveled back in time so they could post the stories "first" and thus embarrass the MSM.
(Seriously, I'm sure that it's happening. But I wouldn't put some bloggers past copying material from other sources and then backdating it in an effort to make themselves look "connected".)
Re:Blogs are a waste of bandwidth. (Score:2)
Go Bloggers! (Score:3, Funny)
copying or coincidence? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:copying or coincidence? (Score:2)
Slightly OT, but If only the same were true for corporate CEOs.
Re:copying or coincidence? (Score:2)
A new entrant for the award is The Sun's new "The Whip" column, (which looks a bit like a blog and asks readers to email tips...) Living up to their name, they whipped Recess Monkey's story about Andrew Rosindell's dead dog Spike, the day after it appeared on his blog.
Here is the quote that "Guy Fawkes" claims was stolen from "Recess Monkey":
I HADN'T heard of Lee Scott before, but the new Tory MP for Ilford North might well be a miracle worker with hidden
Perhaps a link to the winner? (Score:5, Informative)
Here it is, in all its glory: http://5thnovember.blogspot.com/2005/12/and-winne
I would nominate... (Score:2, Funny)
And even before that... (Score:4, Funny)
HEYY-OHHHHHHH!
Re:And even before that... (Score:2)
Isn't this where someone starts shouting about Digg, kuro5hin, or something? ;-)
legally actionable copyright infringement (Score:4, Informative)
How many bloggers have $50,000 to blow on a suit? (Score:3, Informative)
I don't know about you. (Score:2, Insightful)
but have pity on those poor dead tree journalists (Score:4, Funny)
This is pretty disturbing to me (Score:2)
Yes, I know these are difficult times for journalism and there are a lot of challenges facing the so-ca
Re:This is pretty disturbing to me (Score:2)
The NYT is a media company with more than $3bn annual revenues. Its journalists are highly paid with clear career goals and incentives. You're naive if you think you get any kind of accurate reporting from that kind of institution, and it shows in their selective and biased reporting.
In the
I nominate Slashdot! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I nominate Slashdot! (Score:2)
Re:I nominate Slashdot! (Score:2)
Re:I nominate Slashdot! (Score:2)
Re:I nominate Slashdot! (Score:2)
itself included?
Maddox Has Had Some Run-ins (Score:4, Insightful)
I think part of the problem is that most of the print press doesn't realize how many people actually read this stuff. Maddox has a counter on each of his articles that shows unique visitors, and at the time of this radio guy ripping him off, this article already had 312,000 visitors, and over 100 million total for his site.
This happened to me twice... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:This happened to me twice... (Score:3, Interesting)
So why don't you send a DMCA takedown notice to their ISP? They're distributing your copyrighted works, aren't they?
Re:This happened to me twice... (Score:2)
Just as a sidenote, Toshiba just announced such a laptop. There were also some flash-based laptops back in the 386 era.
Re:This happened to me twice... (Score:2)
Got To Be Kidding (Score:3, Insightful)
The poll has ended. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:The poll has ended. (Score:2)
Peter Wright, the Editor - Mail on Sunday took first place.
Marina Hyde the former "Gaurdian" diarist to second honors.
The results are here. [blogspot.com]
This is overdue (Score:2)
So the question is, if my work has been published in printed media under someone else's name can I claim to be a "published journalist"?
Re:This is overdue (Score:2)
If you lookup *anything* on google you'll find dozens of sites with the same explanation, the same wording and in many cases the exact same page layout. Who was first? Certainly most of these sites are blatant ripoffs.
I did cause one site to give up - he'd created a website which was a copy/paste job from a different website, and put his own name on the copyright. He then had the audacity to start publicising his 'site' by spamming a board I was
I was saying the same on my blog the other day (Score:2, Funny)
Exactly the same thing.
Word for word...
Wait a minute!! The BBC ripped off my blog!
Kind of like here? (Score:2)
About time it happened in reverse; karma to burn! (Score:3, Insightful)
Minor premise: Bloggers and other non-professionals are way, way, way more commonly guilty of this than professional journalists are, especially those from reputable sources, i.e. old-school print journalism.
I once was a newspaper reporter myself, strictly local, quite small-time, and I guaran-damn-tee you I found my stuff (or more accurately, my employer's stuff) ripped off by bloggers and other folks online, messageboards and what have you, all the time, approximately [infinity] more than I stole material, which of course I never did.
Non-professionals just don't have the ethics background that keeps the vast majority of mainstream reporters from going anywhere near plagiarism. Yes, it's much more obvious when people with a megaphone do it and yes, those folks are getting paid for it while amateurs (at least usually) are not, but let's not kid ourselves.
Professionals with their heads screwed on straight just don't do this, which is why "press scandals" are not only rare but highly visible. Non-professionals, no matter their influence on the news culture and competitive pressure on mainstream media, are far more prone to plagiarism.
How about we nominate a Blog Plagiarist of the Year too?
Re:About time it happened in reverse; karma to bur (Score:3, Interesting)
There are literally thousands of bot-driven spam blogs out there that just steal articles from other sources, be they blogs or mainstream news articles, and post them as their own to benefit from ad revenue.
Plagiarism of other kinds is amusing to find sometimes, though. I remember doing a project on Hayao Miyazaki when I was in highschool. I found what appeared to be a pretty legit (based on other sources that I'd read) biography of him online...
Re:About time it happened in reverse; karma to bur (Score:2)
No offence, but apparently you're mistaken!
Who cares? (Score:3, Insightful)
I stopped reading/listening/believing what came out of the Big Money Mouthpiece years ago. There are only two reasons to pay attention to Big Media. . .
1. To look for slipped truths through comparative readings of the same story/information as published by several different groups and outlets.
2. To see what herding techniques are being used on the population and thereby get a heads-up and prepare for whatever new scam is coming down the pike. The "Avian Flu Virus" bugaboo is an excellent case in point. When that much media hype is unleashed, your Goebbels [wikipedia.org] Alarm should start ringing like crazy.
So if Big Media starts cutting and pasting your blog content, perhaps you should take a second look at what you're publishing. If your message is pure, chances are you'll be ignored or marginalized rather than given the seal of authoritarian approval. Just a thought.
-FL
Re:blogger accountability? (Score:3, Insightful)
all this critique from bloggers is more than a little hypocritical. who do bloggers always cite as their primary source of information? why, the very mainstream journalists they decry. the notion that hobbyist bloggers can ever replace professional journalists is absurb -- at least, until bloggers start doing their own primary research. that is, doing the things that journalists do. calling up sources -- haranguing sources, often, when they don't want to talk -- doing background research and, last but not l