Forum Moderators: not2easy
Now, if someone comes along, scrapes the information, organizes it, formats is, and presents is in a much better way then the original site, and then adds other functionalities to the new site which enhance the usefulness of the content even more, does this add value to the web? Should this be frowned upon?
Well?
Wouldn't that apply to a good portion of the Internet? Let me get this straight. You want to hijack a good portion of the Internet or just a particular site.
digitalghost,
Just as a hypothetical, if you knew about a discovery or 'gem' as you put it, and the creator/discoverer was not able to bring it to the public due to whatever reason, and this discovery could save lives, would you not opt for the lesser evil?
Would it be ok to kidnap this woman if you can provide her with a higher standard of living AND you have good hygiene?
Stolen content is stolen content. Kidnapping is kidnapping. Is there room for making a hypothetical question out of this?
and this discovery could save lives, would you not opt for the lesser evil?
That is a poor analogy. It's the same as saying this:
Suppose you are a Japanese scientist in WWII and you need to save lives by advancing our understanding of human biology. Because your research will literally save countless lives, you feel it is ok to conduct experiments Chinese civilians.
Would you not opt for the lesser evil of saving lives by sacrificing a few hundred or so civilians?
It's outrageous for you to compare stealing content to enrich yourself from someone else's labor to saving lives. Poor analogy.
Suppose you are a Japanese scientist in WWII and you need to save lives by advancing our understanding of human biology. Because your research will literally save countless lives, you feel it is ok to conduct experiments Chinese civilians.
I'm not saying my analogy is the best, but I'm afraid yours is worse :)
My analogy didn't call for the taking of life, but only saving life. Your analogy calls for the saving of life by causing death. There is a huge difference between those analogies and it borders on a staw-man argument.
I am really not advocating stealing content; I just thought I'd bring up a philosophical question. :)
As we speak I am typing up new content for one of my sites, as I do every night. And I'm also creating new content for WW...he he.
Google, MSN, and Yahoo are not scraped content. They indicate you where the content is, what is a legitimate enterprise. And BTW, you are free to get indexed.
Sure they scrape, can you say CACHE page? If SEs didn't scrape content to build their index they would have NO content. You're missing the point that it's whether you benefit from the scraping or not that makes the difference as the SEs send you traffic and the rest of the scrapers compete for that traffic but the process of getting that content is exactly the same.
BTW, you're free to get indexed but THEY make billions!
Sounds like scrapers to me making a ton of money off my back.
Sorry, but there is no comparison.
1-It's always a hypothetical scenario and the messenger - who stands by the fact that he's but a messenger, always want to discuss the scenario in good faith and doesn't do the action himself...
2-Most questions about contents usually end up with "If you have to ask it here, it's probably illegal and a violation of copyright... No matter how you twist it.
If you need original contents, make it your self, or pay someone else to develop it.
Enough with the over-the-top analogies and the whinging self-justification. The plain fact is that you want to steal somebody else's work, and you want us to tell you that you're doing a good thing.
You're not.
And I hope you get caught.
Eliz.
This was just a question I brought up. I am not advocating stealing content, and don't have the need to do it myself, as I only have a few small sites that are doing just fine sitting there without me having to touch them.
I do have a couple of other sites which I write content for, and those sites don't even have ads or products for sale.
Finally, if I wanted to steal content I would just do it, and not wonder if you (or anyone else) approved or not.
I was hoping that people would be able to distance themselves from automatically being judgmental about a simple question I posed, but I suppose that is too much to ask for.
Let's say your neighbor has a beautiful wife. Her husband has really bad hygiene and their children are hideous.
Would it be ok to kidnap this woman if you can provide her with a higher standard of living AND you have good hygiene?
Is this a trick question?
lol
Well said. :)
But ideally, I think it would be better to go to the owner of the ugly site, and say, "Hey, your information is awesome, and so useful, but it's kind of hard to find and it's not very user-friendly. How about letting me take it and make it more useful? I'll pay you $X."
If the site is so small and disorganized, you may be able to make a good deal for the content, everyone is happy, nothing's been stolen, and another useful site is set up.
Or maybe you can go into a partnership, where the person who makes the good info/content just cranks it out, you make it pretty/optimize it, and you split the money on some sort of mutually agreed upon basis.
An exception might be where the person has their stuff under an explicit Creative Commons or other Open Source license that allows distribution. In which case, as long as you follow the license agreement, go for it: take their stuff, make it pretty, and rock on.
People have been stealing my non-pretty content for years, slapping a couple of extra graphics and maybe a stylesheet on it, and calling it theirs. It's pretty disheartening when, if someone had just come to me and asked, I probably would have said, "Hey, if you think you can make money off it, go for it and kick me back a percentage."
Hm. Sorry if that sounded bitter. :-) I guess in general, Google cache notwithstanding, I'm against using other people's stuff without their consent.
(Note: when I say "you" above, I'm not referring to any particular person, but rather using "you" in the plural to address everyone and no one. None of this is directed at any specific person.)
[whoops! edit to say "Yes, this probably does add value to the web," but it should still be frowned upon. :-)]
JK
You are infringing on a right that was granted to the creator of that content.
In extreme cases, where lives are on the line, many governments, including that of the United States have rescinded certain intellectual property rights. They even do this with real property and personal property (emminent domain) but it is the government that does this through some sort of legal mechanism. Consider What has happened to many of the AIDs drug patents in third world countries, or patents that are deemed vital to national security.
In the case of copyrighted works you still have fair use, as well as the ability to use that copyrighted work as research in producing your own work. Both of those uses are legal, and can serve the public good. If your goal was to make the information more accessible, why not do it right and produce a new work that it better organized as well?
Sure, but not plagiarising the content. It wouldn't be okay to cut and paste, but if you took the information and used it as a basis for your own content, then sure that wouldn't be a problem.
So long as your content is unique and you haven't just switched some words around from the original.
