Re-Writing Content. Ethical?

You can use it for research, but I don't think it's a good idea to simply rewrite it word-by-word. If it's PLR, then yes, it's fine to rewrite because that's what PLR is for.

Yeah sure, atleast you're rewriting it. It would be unethical to just copy it and use it because that's kinda stealing.

Plus if you don't feel comfortable with rewriting somebody's article, you can always rewrite plr articles. For those you actually own the rights to do with them whatever you want.

There is a saying that goes "if you need to ask you already know it isn't..."
:rolleyes:

It would also depend what did you mean by 're-writing'. If I re-write a Hemingway novel how much do I need to change so that you wouldn't accuse me of plagiarism?

If your just looking at it for inspiration, I think it would be fine to rewrite it in your own words. Your words might be better then the original.

No. It isn't ethical, and it isn't moral, and (although I'm not a lawyer) I believe it isn't even legal, either: that would be a "derivative work", according to the law of copyright in most countries, I think.

If you're promoting a product, it's a good idea to ask the vendor/merchant which parts of his own materials you can and can't use with/without re-wording it, though: permission may often be given, or on the other hand they may have firm policies of which it can only help you to be aware. Clarity's always better than guesses.

Remember that unqualified people telling you casually, in a forum, that "I think it would be fine" won't still be there to support you if/when the legal documents hit your mailbox: they'll be off "advising" someone else, by then.

I really don't see how this is wrong to do.

For an example - People that are teaching others how to make money online had to learn it from somewhere. They are re-writing the idea in their own words.
People look at other pages to get inspiration to make their own.

If I made a software that 100% guarantees for you to make money and it did work. You better believe someone would reverse engineer that software, change it to their liking. Make it look completely different but still have the same end result.

Its like cell phones. Do you really think Apple is not looking at Androids phones for inspiration to make theirs better?

To me, that's just business.

Write it in you own words and add you touch don't just copy paste

Re-writing to re-tell a story in your own unique words and way is perfectly fine in my view.

It's a grey area. If the article contains some useful information I will usually rewrite it. I don't think it is a good idea to rewrite the whole article just rewrite the most interesting portions. Of course, if you really want your article to be unique you will have to conduct a lot of research for it.

A research is what you should do, and not just re-write the content of some one else. However, if you plan to use content from someone else in your site, it should have a reference or a link back to the author.

Nope. If you use an idea or fact, give proper attribution via citation. I like endnotes.

You can write much better content that's unique referencing multiple sources and stating your own premises/conclusions/opinions based on your experience and/or research.

For example, if you write an article on "how to train and complete a 5 mile running race" you will do the best job if you train and complete the race. Then write your article setting out your training regimen including your training data and of course your race experience.

You could briefly mention other training regimens published online, but link to them. The article could turn into a full niche site or series setting out your apparel, footwear, supplements, progress to longer races, training guide(s) you used, etc.

Tim Ferriss built a mini-empire blogging about his personal achievements, which results in unique and interesting content.

I generally start an article with an outline so I know where I'm going. I adjust it as I go along. Often I seek out studies and authoritative articles to source in support of points I make or to provide a contrary opinion. I source these resources.

It's amazing how much traffic you can generate from a very well-written and referenced article that is unique and provides information not found elsewhere. Given the amount of poorly written and rehashed content on the web, it isn't hard to create standout material.

Toss in one or a few images (I always use DepositPhotos.com) and you're all set. If you really want to go the distance, add an infographic and video for sharing and distribution.

Very good.

Hopefully people will see this thread and understand what rewriting is.

Like some people said in the posts above. "Research" I think that goes alone with rewriting.

Aside from the ethical considerations, there's another point to consider about "rewriting" (which is really just a form of spinning as most internet marketers use the term). If all you ever do is re-word other people's stuff, you're not adding value. If you don't add value, there's no reason for people to buy whatever it is that you're selling, and so you will not succeed in IM.

Good, original writing takes time and personal knowledge of the subject. It's not easy, but as jgant said above ("It's amazing how much traffic you can generate from a very well-written and referenced article that is unique and provides information not found elsewhere."), the rewards are substantial.

Yes... really... is there anything that is truly original? Isn't every article basically a rewrite? In order not to rewrite we would have to be writing about something that's never been written about before. I am a skating choreographer and although I consider my works to be original, I acknowledge the building blocks have all been used before. The same goes for writing...

There are no new ideas in the world at this point. Copying word for word in a no no of course, but taking an idea and rewriting it in your own words is fine.

It didn't: you did not add anything new and/or worth reading... You didn't even "rewrite" it

Yes of course it is ok as long as you re-write it so that 60% is now original content.
If you have done a degree or any kind of thesis then that is exactly what you are doing when researching - it's all been written before by someone else but just not the way you would have written it.
If you just copy and paste it or make very minor changes and call it a different name then you will be breaching copyright which is a very bad idea!

Aha... 98.2% of the internet statistics are pure fiction

i think this thread describes a whole ton of wsos that come out I know in the past i was "coached" in the "method" to creating my own wso

If you are re writing by taking elements of the article on content and mixing it with other ideas and research then yes its ethical

Don't re write it word for word

No, it isn't ethical and it isn't legal in the US either. (according to the letter of the law) That being said, there are a few exceptions to derivative works. I imagine that what you're thinking of doing won't fall into this category though, so my advice to you is to stay away.

Here is a suggestion.

If you personally have not experienced it, don't write about it.

That is the best way to make sure you are doing the right thing. You will also be confident in your words were the article will be fabulous.

There is an old academic idea that may help:

Putting arguments from one book into your own words is plagiarism. Putting arguments from multiple books into your own words is research.

Hope that helps

It depends on what kind of ethics your mama instilled in you.

I think rewriting an article is unethical. It is also lazy. If you can't take at least 2 or 3 different sources on a topic and synthesize the content into a new article with your own spin on which parts of the originals should be retained and rewritten, then you should find a different business.

That said, there may be some limited exceptions. If you took an article that contained basic factual information on a topic that was written in overly technical jargon and rewrote the facts in a way that a non-technical reader could understand it, I can see an argument that would not be unethical. Rather that taking the original author's ideas and converting them to your own language, you would be taking a basic collection of facts and rewriting them. If there was very little creativity in selecting the facts, your creative contribution could be more valuable than the contribution of the original author. A basic recipe for fudge brownies would be an example of that.

Rewriting an article is taking someone else's ideas and putting them into your own words. Some may call it unethical but then you get most of your ideas by searching on the web.

Rewriting contents is quite hard to make it look like unique.
Better to write original than rewrite.

Depends on whether is an informative article or an original work. In the first case I think no problem because anyone can inform the same, and in the second case I think is not ethical

According to Brainyquote: "If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. --Wilson Mizner"

I usually take that as my guide for whether or not it's ethical or not.

I usually extract the best and most appealing points in an article and rewrite them in my own words and structure.

Think about it, most "original" content are based off what you read from all kinds of sources anyway, magazines, the Internet, newspapers, books. So essentially, everyone's just rewriting content they've learned from elsewhere.

I would say rewriting articles from other sites inst "stealing content" . Irritating yes, but everybody takes everybody else's good ideas and puts on a fresh coat of paint. The step-by-step is merely factual information. All you have to hang your hat on is presentation and genuine copyright protected content; actual text in an actual article. Is it an article, or factual filler? The more 'factual', the more 'step-by-step', the freer anyone is to use the information and reformat to suit their needs.

If it is a rewrite of an article, then the opinion of lawyer is what you need. The better the rewrite, the closer it is to being 'new'. We do this all the time; in addition to writing our own stuff. If someone does something we like, that we haven't thought of, we 'reverse engineer' and do our best to do a better job and raise the bar. They may know we got the idea from them and followed along. However, our version will not use any exact language that is not generic, and we will not reuse any 'signature phrasing'. It is new, unique - and better (even if we did get the idea from them and wish we had thought of it first).

Originality is simply original enough..

Forgot the citation. This is where I got it - rewriting - definition of rewriting by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

You are right, it depends on what the OP see as "rewriting".