Auto Post Blogs

Surely you should know the answer already, because you sell such blogs in your signature, no?

Or is this just a poorly (very) disguised attempt at some self promotion?

My guess is the latter.

But surely, you are selling something, you should already know all there is to know about it.

Otherwise, how can you best serve your customers?

If I steal your car and then spray paint on the back of it that you're the one who bought it, would that protect me from legal problems? Sure... I stole it but I still gave you credit for it.

Most people are waking up to auto-blogs.

There was a very short period of time, when people were in love with the concept of auto-blogs. everyone was selling them, everyone was buying them.

Many people realize now that the only people making money with autoblogs are the people selling them.

People would be much better off creating their own unique content...

My blog will kick the ass of an auto-blog any day...

I wouldn't waste any time selling auto-blogs, they fail to produce results, they don't drive traffic, and they don't produce sales.

They just take up internet real estate and make google mad.

If you do it the right way, and officially syndicate the content and link back to the source, you should be fine.

This is such a simple, straightforward question, that every time it's asked here, the range of replies baffles me.

If you don't own the copyright yourself, then someone else does (unless it's "public domain"/"out-of-copyright"). If you take it without permission, then be ready for the copyright owner to serve a DMCA site takedown notice on your hosting company and/or to sue you.

Don't imagine that they have some obligation to try to contact you first: they don't.

The people posting above who are telling you "you should be ok" won't still be here to support you, when your website disappears and/or you get sued: they'll be off advising someone else, by then. :rolleyes: :p

It isn't, and you know it isn't.

The point is that if it is done the right way, meaning with permission, then it is fine. In the case of auto blogs, if you only pull content from sources that allow it with a back link then you will be fine.

I will admit, the typical guy can't deliver those kinds of results and certainly not that quickly...

And no offense to the original poster, but you probably can't deliver that kind of product either so I hope you don't take my post as your opportunity to advertise your autoblogs.

I'm just pointing out that the success of an autoblog is the sole responsibility of the individual behind it. Chances are, if someone looks at them as 'the answer' or 'something new to try' then they probably won't be successful with it.

Fact is, most people that use them fail.

- BUT IS THAT THE AUTOBLOG'S FAULT? -

As clearly demonstrated, no.

So that's my point. Don't talk shit about them just because you don't know how to deploy them effectively.

Equally don't use them if you don't know EXACTLY what you want to use one for. You'll waste a lot of time and money.

But to make statements about what kind of traffic they can drive - or really any other 'certainties' is foolish and completely ignorant. In order to do that, you have to take the human factor out of it completely.

That problem is immediately compounded by the fact that there has been a series of large changes to the algo relating directly to domain size and punishment over the past 6 months.

And after his post here http://www.warriorforum.com/main-int...our-fault.html I have a hard time believing that he will debate there is a human element to be considered when looking at any method's success or failure.

Perhaps he jumped the gun a little bit?

For instance, if he was to write a course on building an awesome, high converting landing page - would it be fair to judge his information based on the performance of others?

But we can judge the performance of autoblogs?

I realize I'm making an error to establish any kind of blackhat point of view on an increasingly paid & social traffic section of the forum.

Flame suit ready.

And yes, I'm on Obama's team - but if anything goes wrong here it's definitely all his fault.

In fact, just me writing this post is Obama's fault....

No offense but asking that question here will not get you a viable answer, maybe a legal site would be better.

I have used auto blogs before most people knew what wordpress was.
I never even had a second thought about your question and never had a problem.

I still use them in moderation for filler content but in small moderation only.

I always keep over 90 percent original content on my site.

I suppose I should tell the OP that the answer to his question is the cite all of his sources, but that may not insulate him from possible liability.

The way he is talking about doing it absolutely require him to cite the work at very least to remain on any kind of 'fine line.' Especially if those pages were directly monetized, that could be its own concern.

Here's the wikipedia on fair use.
Fair use - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Reproducing the entire document wouldn't be consider 'limited use' in my opinion.

Hope that helps OP. Sorry, I know the above has nothing to do with your thread other than the potential viability of autoblogs as a model of operation.

Im glad that this brought up so much discussion and being able to see the two 'sides' of the autoblog argument. I think @gofoveryou made a pretty good point about traffic and effectiveness on autoblogs because by the look of it he is executing them well.

Thanks for all the feedback. I got a better understanding of it now. Thanks for the fair use wiki, that answer my question fully. There is for sure a limit on how far you can go and the use of it.

Wow... So many long and off-topic responses to what was essentially a simple question regarding copyright infringement as it pertains to auto blogs.

Let's see... since the vast majority of automatic blog software pulls content from article directories there is no copyright issue; as long as an attribution is given consistent with the article directory TOS. (i.e. Ezine Articles TOS )

Content in an RSS feed is protected by copyright, although difficult to enforce.

Copying and pasting content directly from another source without and attribution would be plagiarism at least and a legitimate cause for DCMA action by the content owner.

I hope this provides an accurate and succinct answer to the original question. For more information about autoblogging (reviews and strategies) visit my blog, Autoblogging For Profits

I normally wouldn't comment on this subject but the timing is right... I got a $100.00 check yesterday from Google.

Don't get me wrong .. it's nothing to brag about because it took a year to earn.

I set up a auto-blog about a year ago using wp auto poster (or something like that) and pretty much forgot about it.

I simply picked some keywords and the software finds and post about a paragraph of information based on the keywords on a daily basis. Slapped some adsense on it and forgot about it.

Anyway, now I wonder if I should have made about 100 of these simple little blogs.

Curation is wide spread, and I have not heard of anyone getting in trouble for it, recently.

If you steal someone's work, you will get in trouble if you get caught. But if you quote someone, that has never been a problem that I know of.

Curation is the process of taking a part of someone's content and quoting them. But I would not take more than a paragraph of two, and you need to have a link back to the full article.

I've never felt comfortable having an autoblog. Leaving too much up to chance imo.