Hello all, I realize this is somewhat offtopic, but since it involves my Ruby/Rails related blog, I thought I ask it here, maybe somebody can enlighten me. I came across these links: http://www.webdotdev.com/nvd/server-side/ruby/book... http://www.webdotdev.com/nvd/server-side/ruby/data... http://www.webdotdev.com/nvd/server-side/ruby/data... Those are *my* articles - here are the originals from my site: http://www.rubyrailways.com/book-review-ruby-cookbook/ http://www.rubyrailways.com/data-extraction-for-we... http://www.rubyrailways.com/data-extraction-for-we... At the top of the webdotdev.com pages, there is a photo of the 'author' with an 'About the Author' link. Hint: it's neither my photo, nor is it about me. It also states: "Written by Phil Harrison". resp "Written by Satish Talim". I hope this is just some kind of a joke, or an early attempt to play April fools or something. Of course I am happy if someone picks up my articles, but not that happy if he states he wrote them... Could please someone (e.g. Satish, if you are reading this) explain this to me? Maybe I just misunderstood something and this is some cool new web4.0 trend which everybody knows except me - if it's so, please tell me about it, I'd be eager to hear your opinion on this matter. Thanks, Peter __ http://www.rubyrailways.com :: Ruby and Web2.0 blog http://scrubyt.org :: Ruby web scraping framework http://rubykitchensink.ca/ :: The indexed archive of all things Ruby.
on 2007-03-28 14:59
on 2007-03-28 15:12
On Mar 28, 2007, at 7:59 AM, Peter Szinek wrote: > this to me? Maybe I just misunderstood something and this is some > cool new web4.0 trend which everybody knows except me - if it's so, > please tell me about it, I'd be eager to hear your opinion on this > matter. It's not a cool new trend -- people have been plagiarizing other peoples' writing for a long time. I would like to believe that it's just a mistake, but it's much more likely IMO that it is exactly what it appears to be -- someone has set up a site to "republish" articles under the site's banner, in violation of your copyright. Don't know what, if any, legal recourse you have.
on 2007-03-28 15:30
It seems like webdotdev scrapes blogs and republishes. It also seem like they got the correlation between blog and blogger mixed up. Notice the links to the original under every article. What they're doing is wrong twice: once for publishing copyrighted stuff without permission and once again for mixing up the code that puts a name and a picture on the top. I took a random article from the main page, http://www.webdotdev.com/nvd/client-side/css/inter... . The link for "read more" point to a Roger Johansson's blog. So it seems like it's mixed up code, not someone manually copying /your/ material (they still automatically copy everyone's material, which is wrong). My point being that Satish Talim probably shouldn't be blamed (he's a nice guy, too, and left a comment on the post that's referring to him as author - the original on your own site, I mean). The site should. Aur
on 2007-03-28 15:44
> My point being that Satish Talim probably shouldn't be blamed (he's a > nice guy, too, and left a comment on the post that's referring to him > as author - the original on your own site, I mean). The site should. Ah, thanks, this was what I wanted to hear. Of course it was clear to me that the site is doing something wrong - however I was shocked to see Satish as the 'author' of my article - I also think he is a nice guy so I could not believe my eyes when I saw 'his' article. Fortunately I did not have to... Cheers, Peter
on 2007-03-28 23:57
SonOfLilit wrote: > It seems like webdotdev scrapes blogs and republishes. > > [snip] > > What they're doing is wrong twice: once for publishing copyrighted > stuff without permission and once again for mixing up the code that > puts a name and a picture on the top. > I get somewhat reminded of [http://jwz.livejournal.com/126859.html], or rather the prompts leading to this. (Yes, this is faintly tangential.) I wonder if they really are scraping (which would indeed be copyright breach) rather than grabbing what's, well, up for grabs and advertised as such. (There's little question that putting someone else's mugshot and name on even technically cleanly syndicated content is at least stupid, and not cleanly attributing the true source is at least rude.)  David Vallner  Me being as clueless about the intricacies of internet-age copyright issues as I am, I'll keep to vague wording.
on 2007-03-29 00:11
Obviously from OP's reaction, his stuff wasn't up for grabs. Aur