8 more reasons not to borrow/scrape/copy articles from other sites.

28 replies
So often we here people talk about "borrowing" or scraping other people's content to use on your own site (or autoblog), and for years I (and many other Warriors) have tried to warn people that you just can't take someone else's written material (without permission - some article directories give permission).

Here is the latest story form my local newspaper suing 8 more sites for using their articles. Getting sued for $75,000 per offense should open up the eyes of all the sploggers out there.

8 more websites sued over R-J copyrights; 34 total - Las Vegas Sun

I am all for the "Sue them all" movement.
#articles #borrow or scrape or copy #reasons #sites
  • Profile picture of the author jverley
    Some people never learn.
    Signature

    Warrior Specials, Use "Warrior" as the Promo Code In the Basic Package:
    Backlinks - $27 per 100. Report with links sent to you upon completion. PM me, or signup here: Backlinks

    Unique Articles - $5 per, $10 per in spin syntax.

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183314].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author theimdude
      It is debatable as some sites had credit given to the source. It looks more to me a company short of cash as they even sued a cat website. The one site settled for +- $2000 and if they didn't except the offer they were liable to pay the fees of the people they are suing
      Signature
      Do you want 30 back-links in my PRIVATE BLOG network for ONLY $20 ???
      [LIMITED ACCESS + FREE ARTICLE INCLUDED OR YOUR OWN]

      CLICK HERE NOW
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183328].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jdenc
        I have a feeling that they will not get 75k from any of these people. First the copyright was obtained after the offense and was seemingly obtained just for the purposes of suing. And the cat people? Come on. That's just a pathetic suit.

        You shouldn't do any of the stuff mentioned in the title not sure this is much of an object lesson though.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183354].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
        It doesn't matter if the sites gave attribution or not. If they reprinted the entire story without permission, they still violated copyright law. A two or three sentence excerpt with a link would likely be considered fair use but you can't just publish whatever you want with impunity.

        Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from consequences, although it may mitigate the damages to a degree.

        I can't believe that all the comments at that link were negative against the paper. Why is it so unbelievable that a business which makes it's money from printing these stories would not try to protect their rights and livelihood?

        Tina
        Signature
        Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
        Fast & Easy Content Creation
        ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183373].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author VegasGreg
          Isn't is amazing that people think it is ok to steal if it has a good story. I guess it would be ok for me to rob a bank as long as I did it to feed my cats? (I don't have a cat, just referring to the cat site story)

          Sorry, folks, breaking the law is breaking the law.

          Even if they don't win the case for $75,000, even all the $2,000 settlements will add up and eventually people will just plain stop. It is more about getting people to stop stealing. Too many people (even here in the forum) spread the word that it is ok to do this and it is NOT.
          Signature

          Greg Schueler - Wordpress Fanatic... Living The Offline Marketing Dream...

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183398].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author Chris Grable
            Originally Posted by VegasGreg View Post

            Isn't is amazing that people think it is ok to steal if it has a good story. I guess it would be ok for me to rob a bank as long as I did it to feed my cats? (I don't have a cat, just referring to the cat site story)

            Sorry, folks, breaking the law is breaking the law.

            Even if they don't win the case for $75,000, even all the $2,000 settlements will add up and eventually people will just plain stop. It is more about getting people to stop stealing. Too many people (even here in the forum) spread the word that it is ok to do this and it is NOT.
            Greg,

            I think this issue here is that none of these folks seem to have had any malicious or commercial intent.... and these appear to have been isolated example's on these sites. This appears to be something entirely differrent than the issues we all struggle with. Had they been asked to take the articles down... they probably would have.

            The impression that I got from the article is that the original copyright owner (RJ) sold those copyrights to a second party whose expressed intent was use those copyrights as the basis for lawsuits.

            If I am right in all my assumptions.... this is just a waste of resources.... in a judicial system that already has its hands full.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183441].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author jdenc
          Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

          It doesn't matter if the sites gave attribution or not. If they reprinted the entire story without permission, they still violated copyright law. A two or three sentence excerpt with a link would likely be considered fair use but you can't just publish whatever you want with impunity.

          Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from consequences, although it may mitigate the damages to a degree.

          I can't believe that all the comments at that link were negative against the paper. Why is it so unbelievable that a business which makes it's money from printing these stories would not try to protect their rights and livelihood?

          Tina
          The way they handled it is ridiculous as are many of the targets. No notice just a lawsuit? Ever heard of a Pyrrhic victory? That's the best they can hope for given the way they handled this IMO.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183407].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
          Originally Posted by TMG Enterprises View Post

          It doesn't matter if the sites gave attribution or not. If they reprinted the entire story without permission, they still violated copyright law. A two or three sentence excerpt with a link would likely be considered fair use but you can't just publish whatever you want with impunity.

          Ignorance of the law does not excuse you from consequences, although it may mitigate the damages to a degree.
          It's true. Those sites were infringing upon copyrights. They shouldn't have done that. Many were ignorant of it though. Before the Internet, people would take newspaper clippings and pass them around. Often, people have that same mentality when they pass an article around online. They see it as the equivalent of passing a clipping around in the pre-Internet days.

          By the looks of things, these sites were not major infringers. It's not like they were running their own websites by scraping the newspaper's contents. They grabbed a few articles that related to them or their site's niche.

          I'm not excusing it, but I don't think the newspaper handled this correctly.

          I can't believe that all the comments at that link were negative against the paper. Why is it so unbelievable that a business which makes it's money from printing these stories would not try to protect their rights and livelihood?
          They're negative against the paper because what the paper is doing is stupid. There are things that you can do legally, but that doesn't mean they're smart things to do.

          In a lot of these cases, all the paper had to do was contact these sites and ask them to remove the content. Most of these people would have probably done that on the spot. You would have taught them the proper way to do things and you wouldn't have had such bad PR for your paper.

          What they did instead was to transfer the copyrights to a new entity so that this new entity could go out and sue people for money. It's not about protecting their content, it's not about preserving their livelihood. It's all about trying to squeeze out every buck they can out of anything they can find.

          If these sites had refused to remove content or were blatant scrapers, then, fine, sue them. But, taking a heavy-handed approach like this is just bad PR.

          In the long run, I think this will hurt the paper's livelihood more than it will protect it.
          Signature

          Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

          Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183415].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author kindsvater
        Originally Posted by theimdude View Post

        It is debatable as some sites had credit given to the source. It looks more to me a company short of cash as they even sued a cat website. The one site settled for +- $2000 and if they didn't except the offer they were liable to pay the fees of the people they are suing
        None of this is true. A perfect example of how ignorance of legal issues will get you sued.

        - Crediting the original source is not a defense to copyright infringement. Rather, it highlights that you know that what you are posting is not yours - and who owns it.

        - No one is liable to pay attorney fees if a settlement offer is not accepted. You're dreaming and it's time to wake up if you think this is a way out of a lawsuit.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183436].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      Note that the one guy is being sued for posting stories or "portions of" stories. That's a bit worrisome. If he's writing his own summary and linking to the source, it shouldn't be an issue.

      They're also suing a cat website, an EMT website and who knows how many other small websites. Looking over the cases, these sites aren't scrapers or stuff like that. These are probably small websites reposting news stories.

      An important point to note is that none of the offenders were notified beforehand. They weren't issued a DMCA takedown request. The paper just slapped them with a lawsuit.

      That's, of course, within their rights, but in terms of PR, what they are doing is really, really stupid. It would have been better had they simply asked the sites not to copy their stories. Look at the comments on the article, for example.

      Another point... These lawsuits are actually handled by another company, who the paper apparently transferred the copyrights to, so that this company could hunt down and sue every little website that is copying the paper's content. This company seems to exist for no other purpose than just that.

      If they were going after the major content thieves that are out there, that would be one thing. If they had asked these sites to C&D and they didn't comply, that would have been one thing too.

      As it is, what they are doing is just plain dumb. The bad PR will likely cause them more damages than what they will collect in their lawsuits and settlements. Website owners who hear about this will be far, far, far less likely to link to the Las Vegas Sun or any of its stories, preferring to keep a stay a wide distance away from them.

      This is a good lesson as to why we should respect the copyrights of others. But, it is equally a lesson in how not to handle things online. This is a prime example of the Old Media completely not getting it. These kinds of lawsuits will probably continue as the Old Media continues in its death throes. They don't get the Internet. Many refuse to adapt and change. Old Media is befuddled. It's dying and it's desperate.

      Let it die.
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183379].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author GeorgR.
    It looks more to me a company short of cash
    In those times where EVERYTHING goes viral aka Web2.0, i think its utterly silly to sue web site owners because they picked up an article from a site. Yes, the law might be on their side - but it is STILL silly.

    And as it looked to me some bloggers simply re-posted/blogged this without any commercial intent whatsoever.

    but you can't just publish whatever you want with impunity.
    No you cant, but this doesn't automatically mean evil intent. A little leniency (or maybe contacting the site owner) would make much more sense as opposed to straight out suing right away.

    Its funny since the zillions of bookmarking and web2.0 "share a link or a story" sites are literally encouraging people to share....what i am saying is that people might use content not even aware of that they are doing something wrong - because they do that every single day. Go on any web2.0 site and see how they work.

    It could be as simple as seeing something interesting on a site, you blog about it or post about it...and a week later you get a lawsuit.

    I can't believe that all the comments at that link were negative against the paper. Why is it so unbelievable that a business which makes it's money from printing these stories would not try to protect their rights and livelihood?
    The normal way would be to contact the site owner(s) and ask them to remove that oh-so-valuable content. Case closed. One little blogger got wiser and lesson learned. I have my doubts they did this tho.
    Signature
    *** Affiliate Site Quick --> The Fastest & Easiest Way to Make Affiliate Sites!<--
    -> VISIT www.1UP-SEO.com *** <- Internet Marketing, SEO Tips, Reviews & More!! ***
    *** HIGH QUALITY CONTENT CREATION +++ Manual Article Spinning (Thread Here) ***
    Content Creation, Blogging, Articles, Converting Sales Copy, Reviews, Ebooks, Rewrites
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183378].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author VegasGreg
    Good points Dan.
    Signature

    Greg Schueler - Wordpress Fanatic... Living The Offline Marketing Dream...

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183418].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author statelizard
    Do you really want to know why they're doing it? To see if they can win it, it's not going to be about these small sites. These cases are only a testing ground. They are setting themselves up and putting down the groundwork so that the news industry can go after places like the huffington post. And I say good for them.

    Have you looked at how much the H.post charges for advertising on their site? The vast majority of their stories are ripped directly from newspapers or online newspapers. It is against the law to republish an article in its entirety if you don't have the copyright holders explicit permission, even if you are giving them credit. If you want to make your readers aware of a certain story that's fine, all you have to do is put up a short summary and then link to the actual story.

    If you are just posting someones story on your website, you aren't doing it for the good of your readers, you're doing it for the good of your website, and therein lies the problem. You are using anothers' work, that you have no legal rights too, for your benefit. The newspaper industry has taken a major hit since the rise of the internet and they're finally starting to catch up with the technology, you can bet that there will be more and more of these cases coming up. And to be frank, it's about time. This is just another example of the www moving from the "wild west web" to the "world wide web".

    Build your business accordingly.
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183523].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Tina Golden
      I do agree that the paper or their front company could have gone about things differently and saved themselves a lot of bad press. Sending a DMCA notice should have been the first step before just suing.

      I also think that Josh may be correct in that this is more of a shot over the bow of some of the most egregious offenders, the ones that ignore DMCAs to start with.

      Perhaps Brian can answer this - doesn't the amount of damages depend on what the offender was doing with the content and whether or not that it actually harmed the copyright owner's income in some way?

      Tina
      Signature
      Discover how to have fabulous, engaging content with
      Fast & Easy Content Creation
      ***Especially if you don't have enough time, money, or just plain HATE writing***
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183586].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author jdenc
      Originally Posted by statelizard View Post

      Do you really want to know why they're doing it? To see if they can win it, it's not going to be about these small sites. These cases are only a testing ground. They are setting themselves up and putting down the groundwork so that the news industry can go after places like the huffington post. And I say good for them.

      Have you looked at how much the H.post charges for advertising on their site? The vast majority of their stories are ripped directly from newspapers or online newspapers. It is against the law to republish an article in its entirety if you don't have the copyright holders explicit permission, even if you are giving them credit. If you want to make your readers aware of a certain story that's fine, all you have to do is put up a short summary and then link to the actual story.

      If you are just posting someones story on your website, you aren't doing it for the good of your readers, you're doing it for the good of your website, and therein lies the problem. You are using anothers' work, that you have no legal rights too, for your benefit. The newspaper industry has taken a major hit since the rise of the internet and they're finally starting to catch up with the technology, you can bet that there will be more and more of these cases coming up. And to be frank, it's about time. This is just another example of the www moving from the "wild west web" to the "world wide web".

      Build your business accordingly.
      Straight news I see reprinted on Huff post is generally from the AP. Want to bet they have done the deal to legally have it there? And seriously you think someone wouldn't have sued those deep pockets a long time ago if they thought they had a shot?
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183640].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Eric Lorence
    While a generally good topic, not a good example.

    This outfit is no better than domain or "idea" (intellectual property) squatters, probably spending their time looking for profitable legal targets, then offering to buy the "rights" of the original article for the sole objective of a lawsuit.

    This is just about the money - no "high minded" ideals here.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183626].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author MassiveMarketer
    The newspaper should have requested for the content to be put down - somewhat like a warning than having it brought to court.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183631].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Eric Lorence
      Originally Posted by MassiveMarketer View Post

      The newspaper should have requested for the content to be put down - somewhat like a warning than having it brought to court.
      It's a third party company filing these lawsuits.

      The newspaper is probably clueless as to the primary intentions of the company "buying" the news stories, and then suing - it's just about the money.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183648].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author jdenc
        Originally Posted by Eric Lorence View Post

        It's a third party company filing these lawsuits.

        The newspaper is probably clueless as to the primary intentions of the company "buying" the news stories, and then suing - it's just about the money.
        I doubt they sold their rights to the stories and didn't know exactly what was going to happen.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183658].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author Eric Lorence
          Originally Posted by jdenc View Post

          I doubt they sold their rights to the stories and didn't know exactly what was going to happen.
          Though I'm in no way defending them - but you'd be amazed.

          And why "sell" the rights anyway? They could file their own lawsuits - why the "middleman"?

          Or hire a law firm that specializes in this sort of action, and is compensated by the settlement money - why sell your rights at all?

          Just thinking aloud.
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183678].message }}
          • Profile picture of the author jdenc
            Originally Posted by Eric Lorence View Post

            Though I'm in no way defending them - but you'd be amazed.

            And why "sell" the rights anyway? They could file their own lawsuits - why the "middleman"?

            Or hire a law firm that specializes in this sort of action, and is compensated by the settlement money - why sell your rights at all?

            Just thinking aloud.
            Well you could certainly be right but all a newspaper has of value is it's IP rights. If they did that without knowing then they are kind of stupid and going to regret any backlash because it's going to all fall on them regardless of who they sold what to.
            {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183695].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
        Originally Posted by Eric Lorence View Post

        It's a third party company filing these lawsuits.

        The newspaper is probably clueless as to the primary intentions of the company "buying" the news stories, and then suing - it's just about the money.
        The article says the suing company has partnered with the newspaper. To me, that implies that the newspaper is fully aware of what's going on.
        Signature

        Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

        Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183980].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Ilya Feynberg
    You know...

    It's more than simply worrying about legal trouble. I would never scrap content or deliver rehashed crap because people see right through that. 1 passionately, well written, value packed article will out deliver a tub of garbage any day of the week.

    You can try and brand crap, but it usually doesn't end very well.

    Doing things right the first time around is much easier than doing it all wrong over and over again.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183972].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Marhelper
    I don't know why people use other's materials illegally when you can just go to EZA, etc ... and legally use their article on our site (of course, leaving their link, etc... intact).
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183981].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author David McKee
    While I agree with the premise of not scraping for the purposes of re-posting content that is not your own, I think web scraping or harvesting has it's place. It is an awesome research tool to be able to assemble massive databases of linked data for discovering trends, building your own sites, capturing leads, etc. I actually had just posted a thread on this exact topic here: http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...eneration.html

    I think that sometimes "Web-Scraping" is seen as a black-hat technique when in fact that is exactly what Google and all the other search engines are doing. You just have to know where the line is and not cross it.

    Unfortunately, too many cross that line with impunity and it casts a pall over many otherwise useful techniques.

    My 2 cents, your mileage may vary.
    -DTM
    Signature
    Are you an affiliate marketer? My site has tons of free stuff and 14,000 pages of Clickbank research. www.affiliatesledgehammer.com
    Buy a Freedom Bulb! Don't let the government tell you what kind of light bulb you can use!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2183995].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Lawrh
      Slashdot Story | The Rise of the Copyright Trolls

      This is part of a trend by legal firms to generate easy money. Send out threats of lawsuits with the option to settle for $1500 or $2500. Paying out $1500 is cheaper than hiring a lawyer so they settle, even the innocent settle as it is cheaper. It's serious abuse of the system. The EFF and others are fighting back.
      Signature

      “Strategy without action is a day-dream; action without strategy is a nightmare.” – Old Japanese proverb -

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2184025].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author thelastmuse
    Our philosophy is: no need to reinvent the wheel but make everything unique and make it better
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2184210].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author Dan C. Rinnert
      Here's another story on this topic:

      Newspaper Chain’s New Business Plan: Copyright Suits | Threat Level | Wired.com

      I'm for protecting your work, but I can't help but think that the newspapers that participate in these efforts are doing little more than hammering more nails into their own coffins.

      I can see it reaching the point where people are going to treat newspaper sites like hot potatoes. It may cut down on people copying their articles without permission, but people may just reduce linking to them all together. People won't talk about them and won't quote them out of fear of being sued.

      For example, when I have writers do articles for me now, I tell them not to even use newspapers as sources for information. They've tried suing over "deep-linking" in the past and now who nows how small a quote they might sue over? It's just not worth the risk.

      And that's what they're doing to themselves. Old Media is a dying industry and, instead of adapting, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

      And these lawsuit trolls are the gangrene that is growing.
      Signature

      Dan's content is irregularly read by handfuls of people. Join the elite few by reading his blog: dcrBlogs.com, following him on Twitter: dcrTweets.com or reading his fiction: dcrWrites.com but NOT by Clicking Here!

      Dan also writes content for hire, but you can't afford him anyway.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[2379089].message }}

Trending Topics