Om writes about his experience with splogs and plagiarism too. What’s great about these complete copy-cat blogs is when they steal and re-post the entries that talk about them stealing and re-posting content. It shows, of course, that this is just an automated system, and these guys are doing it to generate revenue. They do it because they can, and because it makes business sense for them to do it.
I had my own experience with plagiarism recently as well, as did Steve Rubel and countless others. The experience I had just sucked the energy right out of me. It was good, I guess, that it happened just before Christmas so that I had an excuse to stop blogging so much for a few days. But knowing there are people out there that don’t have any ethical grounding whatsoever, and that they have complete power to take what they like from you without any consequences, makes me just want to stop blogging altogether.
I found that I actually had to defend myself and how I dealt with the fact that someone stole my content. People have a tendency to try and see both sides of an issue. So when someone steals content from you, others are going to ask if you handled yourself properly in dealing with it. It is the same mentality that leads people to forgive other types of criminal behavior, and blame the victim.
Update: Dave Winer pointed me to a post he did two years ago that pretty much says everything I mean to say, but better (see the comments to this post as well). Journalists have a responsibility to dig for the truth, not to blindly report what both sides are saying. Just because people disagree doesn’t mean the truth lies somewhere in the middle. That’s why I was somewhat disappointed with Jonathan’s post.
Michael,
Please don’t confuse reporting both sides of a story with approving of it. As a journalist, it’s what I have to do, I literally took an oath to that effect.
You don’t have to defend your actions to anyone, much less to me. As someone who’s handled over 300 cases of plagiarism of his own work, I know all too well about victim-blaming and I have no desire to participate in it. I just have a duty to be fair and it kills me at times.
We all have to make our own decisions as to how we handle these things. Yes, I teach a different approach on my site but you’ll get no judgment from me. I just wanted to tell the story and use it to illustrate a few points that had been coming up repeatedly on the site.
Yes, you are the victim, yes, you were wronged. There is no doubt there in my book.
I just wanted to make sure that you didn’t misinterpret my intentions.
Hi Jonathan,
This is a problem I have with journalism in general - this overzealous need to present a balanced story even when a story clearly isn’t balanced. A really big part of your writeup dealt with whether or not Josh received communication from me and in what form - which I don’t think is relevant. And it also presented his excuses as if they were possibly accurate, when they were clearly fabricated (no time to link, when there were other links in the story, etc.). For example, you say:
and
As a journalist, I believe you must take the time to debunk clearly fabricated stories, and not present them as fact.
And while you took pains to say you weren’t judging me, you do say:
…which sounds a lot like you are judging me. If my reputation was hurt by this episode, so be it. But to paint this story as if it has two sides, both parties were partially wrong, etc., just excuses the original behavior and hurts my reputation (a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy).
And the energy drain I discuss in the post above was enhanced by posts such as yours. I also believe that your post contributed to Josh feeling like he’d done nothing wrong. Look at some of the comments to the original post, near the end. In particular, see Josh’s comment:
Does this sound like a man who is sorry for his actions?
…without any consequences…
Well, there can be cosequences but only you can instigate them. Being copyrighted material (assuming the full protections and you haven’t given them away under certain creative commons provisions), you can contact their ISP, you can sue, etc. All take time, money but it’s the only way there will be consequences. It’s up to the rights holder to take action and enforce their rights. But, not always an easy thing to do. And not always popular, just look to the flack Apple takes when they try to enforce their right to IP.
Mike,
It could be worst - you could be a rising music artist who auditioned for an A&R guy and 6 months later, some bubblegum pop artist is making millions from what you auditioned to the A&R guy. You also could be a hollywood writer who script get constantly rejected, go to the movies where the number one box office hit have snippets of script you submitted.
This is the crap that goes on in the media all the time. TV reporters stealing stories from others, journalist piggybacking off of others, radio shows stealing other radio shows comical skits, etc. You are consider a good tech writer and you are now being exposed to the dirt that want ‘in’ on your contributions.
I’ve seen content mashup of your writings on plenty of sites - just google. But don’t let it get you down. Just keep being you, ignore the static and accept the fact things like this happen. What usually happens is people that see the phoney content usually find their way to the original source, so in essence, the plagarism actually promotes your works in the long run.
Thank you, Ed. Your regular comments (even when you slam me) keep me going.
Mike, hi.
Your comments on journalist really resonated here. I was just talking about this to some colleagues a few days ago.
You see, for a journalist, presenting both sides of a story is really the easiest thing to do.
I have worked in marketing/PR for a major IT company in a past life. We were in a situation were a competitor made wild claims about their product as opposed to ours. The journalist called me to see what I had to say about it. Naturally, I said ‘nothing’.
I did say I could give him our data, and *he* should be the one to write up who was right or wrong. It never happened, of course… This happens every day.
Ever wonder why they keep interviewing the neighbor who says the killer ’seemed such a nice guy’? Because then the news is done, and they don’t need to question analyze, recap and present the facts temselves to the public. The motto for a (much too) big bunch of journalists is ‘let someone else write the news’.
Anyway, sorry for the rant, as I said, it struck a nerve…
Jope - good comment, and I agree. I don’t want to demonize Jonathan, however. He took the time to talk to everyone, I just disagree with large parts of his post.
OK so I gotta ask, if stuff appears in an RSS stream, what exactly can one do with that? What’s allowed and what isn’t?
Good question Jacob! A search site or aggregator, etc. can pull the feed and display it but a private/personal site can’t. All they are doing is aggregating/mashingup just like a lot of Web-2.0 companies aren’t they?
I don’t know the answer but it’s a good question.
well, copyright law has something to say about this. I use a CC license - all I ask for is attribution - http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/.
I’m not sure how you can execute a public retaliation for a wrong and then not expect people to criticize your methods (right or wrong).
Whether or not you followed the best method of handling the situation is wholly separate from whether this guy did something wrong or not (unless he didn’t), but it is still something worth discussing.
Gathering a lynch mob to hunt down a suspected thief doesn’t make the thefts right, but it is certainly not what most people consider the best way to handle thefts.
The most curious thing, to me, is that I’ve not seen you present any evidence that you did call him directly or that you emailed him… so it’s just an assertion you’re making. He’s making the other assertion — that you didn’t. More interestingly, he’s saying (as best I can tell) that he didn’t get any of your direct communication attempts… which seems unlikely if you actually made them. So it’s perfectly possible that you’re both correct in your assertions, but you want people to believe you on faith, and disbelieve him on faith… which doesn’t really work.
“I’m not sure how you can execute a public retaliation for a wrong and then not expect people to criticize your methods (right or wrong).”
Why not? Yeah, I didn’t expect to be attacked for defending my property.
If you read my original post, you’ll see that all I did was express outrage at Josh’s actions. I did not discuss all of these other assertions as to what went on after the plagiarism occured, because it is irrelevant to what he did. Jonathan was the one who dove into all that detail.
And, in response to your second paragraph - I did not create a lynch mob, I expressed outrage. I do feel that public humiliation and reputation trashing is exactly the kind of response needed to deal with this kind of situation. As an attorney, I had other options open to me as well. I chose the path that I did for very specific reasons.
Mike so if the guy who copied Om’s site copied yours instead (see http://www.yukonet.com/default.aspx?content=showChannel&channelId=109273) and acknowledged where its from, like he did, you would have no objection? The license you quote only requires attribution, right?
Also: in what way is the difference (besides that the “bad guys” use the full text, which is in the feed) between those supposed bad guys and Technorati?
The bad guys attribute the source
Technorati does
The bad guys put ads on the page
Technorati does
In what way exactly are these different?
Jacob,
Yes, if the attribution is there it does not violate the CC licence I have put up. I don’t like it, but I don’t complain.
You don’t complain…Ye ha…bullshit.
That’s what this is all about.
If you are doing the CC with just attribution, I can reuse everything you do and put the attribution in mouse-type text with no link. What’s yours is now mine.
Now we are getting down to substance. You’ve just been bitten by the exact same thing you promote…mashup…you just don’t like when you are the one being mashed.
At least that’s my take so far.
PXLated, No, that is not the case in this instance. Josh stole the content from my site. He did not attribute me in any way, including just a text mention. He also specifically took out links in the post that were to TechCrunch (where I self-linked to other posts I had written), although he left other links intact. So, I think you are wrong in this case and if you read my original post, and compare the content, you will see what I am talking about - http://www.crunchnotes.com/?p=92.
My content is regularly grabbed by sploggers and reposted, sometimes with attribution, often without. When I said I do not complain, I was talking about sploggers. Josh, on the other hand, is a friend of a number of my friends. He behaved in a despicable manner, and continues to with his follow up comments on my original post.
I am getting increasingly frustrated with all of this. Is anyone bothering to read these posts and what I wrote before flaming me?
Mike,
When I messaged Om early yesterday after finding my posts, his posts and a few others in the VoIP space blattently ripped off, he was more than a tad upset.
Others jumped in, including DSLPRIME.com’s Dave Burstein. Jeff Pulver, who along with Rich Terhani, Bryan Richards and myself all have our content on the offenders site.
Today the ISP took them offline, then a few hours ago, they have reappeared. My content is up there minus the links back. I saw Bryan Richards’ VoIP Magazine stuff there too.
I have written to the ISP and hope to get this resolved. Jeff Pulver has referred this to his legal attache’ and I suspect it will be a topic of discussion when I see he and Jonathan next week in Las Vegas for their VoIP summit.
My concern, all views pro and con aside, is that for some of these blogs that are ripped off are ad supported, so it is eyeballs that end up on the wrong page.
Much like parody URLs that take traffic away when you type the wrong spelling, these are parasitic and clog up the blogosphere.
Mike, listen I am sorry for all of this… This just seems to be going on and on..
Let me know if I can help in anyway… This is just as frustrating for me as it is for you.
Mike, also in regards to contacting me, my contact information is provided all over the place. Linkedin has 4 of my email addresses on my profile (Available for the public) in addition, considering you know the same people I know, I am sure it should not have been difficult to get my phone number. Let me know if you want me to chip in anywhere… I just wish this would end and we can move on. I made a mistake and that is it. Again, any article that i do find, I will continue to link them to my article.
I also want to thank Jonathon for actually taking the time over the phone and speaking to me about this situation as well. Also, Mike for taking my call last week and allowing me to explain.
Let me know if I can be of any more assistance
Josh Stomel
Mike, that pointer you posted to Dave Winer’s article is broken. I’d be interested to see it.
Josh– Reading your above comment asking Mike if you can provide any assistance is like having an arsonist volunteering to “help put out” the fire.
This whole situation–which began the very moment Josh decided to take work other than his own and post it without attribution–has put Mike (and others) in a very awkward position–but at least it has led to a good dicussion about plagiarism, ownership and usage under creative commons. However, it continues to be at Mike’s expense, thus the “victim” has to defend his actions.
I agree with Mike’s actions 100% — a lot of work goes into blogging, building a community and putting yourself in public view. When someone steals from you, there is a sense of violation and frustration.
I believe Josh’s actions (especially his recent posts which are self-serving) have shown a lack of maturity or scope of understanding at how serious this is. I know Jonathon was simply asking questions as a journalist–but misses the point entirely. Mike wasn’t out to publicly humilate Josh, he was simply reclaiming what was his in the first place and shedding light on someone who, if Mike had done otherwise, would have continue to steal content from many sources first and apologize later.
The currency of Web 2.0 is the ability to freely share information with proper attribution–it provides a level playing field for conversations and exchange of ideas.
Josh is upset that he was caught & is now trying to steal the spotlight that exposed his wrongdoing in the first place. Josh, I’d take a break from blogging, take a class on plagiarism and put in some community service time.
PXLated
“If you are doing the CC with just attribution, I can reuse everything you do and put the attribution in mouse-type text with no link. What’s yours is now mine.”
Arguments like this make judges and trial lawyers sniggle at defendents that assume they know the law. It also make it easier for the jury to award huge punitive damages.
No one in this country is ever entitled to copy someone else work, not attributed the original author and pass it off as their own without the copyright owner permission.
I have yet to see any of the file-sharing defendents provide a valid argument or successfully defended a suit from the RIAA with the lame “CDs cost too much” or “file sharing is cool” argument…
Mike
I just want to point out that your techcrunch Creative Commons license says no commercial use. That means I would expect you to object loudly to your RSS being aggregated by the likes of Technorati and also your pages being listed in Google. Both of these companies splatter their pages with commercial ads so they’re making a buck off of your content.
OK, so where’s the line? The question in my mind still remains why is it OK for technorati to make a buck from your content but not some splog?
Jacob,
I underand your point, but this isn’t my battle. Not gonna fight it.
I’m sure you are getting way sick of this, Mike, but:
I have a lot of respect for how you have handled this. All of these arguments about what proper use is misses the point: Someone lited (and changed) your content and claimed it was his own.
Seems black and white to me.
I agree completely with Robert Anderson what these people were doing is theft, plain and simple.
However even though its Mike’s personal trouble, I wanted to have a broader discussion about what is and what isnt acceptable fair use.
Mike,
While I appreciate that copying content wholesale is wrong, I can’t help feeling that its completely inevitable. The moment you put out content as an RSS feed, you’re asking for it to be syndicated. So while you might be morally right here, to single out one splogger won’t change the nature of RSS. If we start asking for the right to restrict the distribution of our content, we’ll quickly head towards DRM for blogs. As previous commenters pointed out, Technorati and Google are already profiting from your blog content, but you accept that because they provide links back (ie. they create value for you). Why not structure your blog in such a way that sploggers create more value for you than you create for them? It’s certainly less effort to go with the flow than to go after every single splogger out there.
I realize you’re justifiably angry at the splogger here, so I held off posting for a while, but most of your recent posts have been about how music should be free and un-DRMed, and that musicians should profit in other ways. I can’t help feeling that blog content should also be free and monetized within the feed itself (although not necessarily with ads). More here:
http://mashable.com/2005/12/31/why-online-media-should-be-free-and-why-we-should-embrace-the-splogophere/
Pete - I think your analogy is incorrect. to compare what Josh and sploggers do to the music industry, you’d have to imagine an artist performing a Beatles song and calling it his/her own. Stealing content, and stealing content to pretend it is your creation, are very different things.
Mike,
Do you know how I discovered (and still read) Techcrunch? Through a site called Planet Web 2.0:
http://planetweb20.com/
These guys reprint Techcrunch (and plenty of other sites) in full - the only difference between this and splogging is that they provide a link back. In fact, a site called Planet Ajaxian reprints my feed in full AND puts Google ads next to it AND sells Ajaxian consulting services right beside it. They’re making money from my feed and they didn’t even ask for permission. But I don’t care because they provide more traffic to my site - they get money and I get attention.
So my point is: why not just put a link back to your site (or the original post) within the feed itself, then you won’t need to worry about attribution. How about inserting a “by Mike Arrington” in the feed? Better still, include plenty of links back to previous articles so no-one is in any doubt who the content belongs to. And if your users are comfortable with it, try out ads or unobtrusive affilate links within the feed itself - once you’ve monetized the microchunk, it doesn’t matter how it gets disseminated.
I’m not saying that sploggers aren’t worthless pieces of sh*t that clog up Technorati and make it hard to navigate the blogosphere, but why waste your valuable time trying to chase these scumbags? Are they worth it? Most of these splog sites will disappear pretty quickly anyway, but since you can’t stop every single splogger, you might as well figure out ways to minimise your losses. If these people are too disrespectful to provide attribution, you should just force them to provide links back by making this an intrinsic part of your feed.
If sploggers start becoming a drain on your bandwidth or - worse still - start redirecting all the attribution links back to their own sites - it’s time to contact their host.
I just spotted this: “He also specifically took out links in the post that were to TechCrunch (where I self-linked to other posts I had written)”. So in that case, Josh is definitely ripping off your content and it’s worth going after him.