3 Comments

Blog Jacking?

I don’t mind news aggregators, in fact I rather like the idea, but I recently discovered a post of mine had be re-published lately. It is attributed… kinda (it links the original post at end of the article). And though the site doesn’t appear to be affiliated commercially, I am thrown off by this.

I discovered this as I was looking through comments that been posted and saw a message that was left with no name and no comment – only a link to the site.

I like blogging. Creating articles and documentation and seeing people being able to use them is why I like doing this. I like writing about open source because it is about sharing in the free and responsible way – I don’t believe this republication carries in that thought – using anothers post as their own.

I looked to see if any others had any similar issues. And I began to think about a basic license system for blogs – and if it’s really necessary. I came across coker’s blog (another open source blogger) and began to understand that other people are having this issue too. Its lofty, yes, but the frustration I can understand – bloggers who share ideas like to be protected against replication, not of the ideas, but of content.

The post links to an article that points out that their are people using blogging content others have created to create money for their own site. People that do this, called scrapers, can use scripts that extract the information from an RSS feed and often adding comment systems and such. Its something I have never thought of before writing a blog.
The article “Fighting Scrapers” also points out a few tips to help prevent scrapers.

So, do any readers have any suggestions about licensing? Have any out there had issues with content being redistributed? Or as an open source blogger am I being too close to vest.

About these ads

About Gen2ly

<3's linux

3 comments on “Blog Jacking?

  1. I’m trying to find an answer about whether bloggers think it’s important to protect their writings so I removed the original blog’s link and comments related to it. I believe it’s important that the discussion remains impartial.

  2. I’m happy for content to be copied in a non-commercial manner for the purpose of spreading ideas. There are quite a number of sites that copy my content in such a way that I am aware of and happy with.

    Sites that add value are also a good thing, if someone runs a personal blog which has Google advertising (as many people are doing) and quotes a significant portion of one of my posts as part of their own discussion of an issue then my interpretation of “fair use” and “fair dealing” laws would be quite liberal.

    What I object to is people who do no work, make no contributions, and just want to rip off my work for quick commercial gain.

  3. I couldn’t agree more. I like the concept of thoughts being fanned out. Using parts of, as long as it attributed, looks like a good idea to me. Using the entire article, I would rather people avoid, more so if it’s followed by a comment section. We all interpret information in our own way, why not express it?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 51 other followers

%d bloggers like this: