Bitacle splogger scam update: some thoughts

Addendum:  Lorelle van Fossen, who is probably no stranger if you are using WordPress, was kind enough to quote this post extensively on her blog. But, browsing her blog, I realized that, had I already been reading Lorelle, I could have saved myself some time by just writing  "go to Lorelle's most excellent review of what to do if your content is being ripped off."

Even if you only have a mild interest in copyright infringement, her post is well worth the time.

Bitacle has become Public Enemy #1 this weekend in some parts of the blogosphere (Search Bitacle on Technorati for more details). As I reported earlier, the Spain-based splogger scrapes your content (your Creative Commons deed be damned), monetizes it, keeps the cash -- and refuses to answer email complaints. I called them "thieves" in my first post, and I am repeating the charge here. Bitacle's boss, the magnificently misnamed Jesus Angelo "But call me Ladrón, honey" Glez, is a thief.

A Stop Bitacle movement is taking the battle to the streets, of course.

Bitacle, while not replying to anyone's mails, as far as I can see, seems to be aware they are under attack. They've been down much of the weekend, and they have (today) started including the URL to the content they steal. Nevertheless, they are still ripping off and re-purposing content, without permission, for their own financial gain. Worse, they still encourage comments to the stolen blog posts on their site in an attempt to dupe readers into believing they are seeing a "real" blog. So I've commented on my own stolen posts:

"If you are reading this, you need to know that Bitacle -- the owner of this site -- has stolen all the content you are reading. Bitacle has not asked permission to publish any of the content you are reading on its site. It has not asked permission to use the content for commercial gain. It has not paid any of the original writers. It has violated the copyright laws of dozens of nations.

If content theft offends you, I urge you to a) read weblogs on authorized services, such as www.technorati.com, and b) visit the Stop Bitacle site (http://stopbitacleorg.wordpress.com/) and lend your support."

Not that I have any illusion that it will shame Bitacle into reform. Indeed, I largely agree with Amy Gahran:

Personally, I think going after the sploggers is the wrong way to address this problem…

Tracking down and shutting down a splogger isn’t easy. Plus, if you shut down one splogger site, it’s fast and easy for them to open up shop somewhere else. So I think it’s largely wasted effort to try to shut any particular splogger down. It’s like stamping out cockroaches, rather than stopping them from breeding. They’re simple opportunists, so I think the answer is to remove their opportunity.

A REAL SOLUTION: Personally, I wish the online ad services (Google, Yahoo, etc.) would alter their programs – and audit them more closely – so they stop encouraging sploggers. Right now, the way their programs run, I think splogs are an inevitable byproduct.

I do have many better things to do than worry about ignorant Spanish sploggers, but I do think it's healthy, once in a while, to signal Google and Yahoo -- and they have pretty good blog monitoring systems -- that many of us are fed up with the way AdSense encourages abuse.

Moving on, what have been most instructive this weekend are the debates about splogging, Creative Commons deeds, copyright, RSS, etc., that the Bitacle scam has prompted. I was particularly distressed by the widespread belief in what I can only call myths and silly-billies about online content. I'd like to discuss some of them here, and I would very much like readers to weigh in.

Myth #1: If you publish on the Internet, it's in the public domain. Untrue. Authors have copyright from the moment they create something in tangible form (and, tangible, for these purposes, includes on-line content), and they relinquish it only by explicitly agreeing to do so. Moreover, in much of Europe, the author always retains moral rights to the work, unless explicitly waived.

Sub-myth #1a: Blog content is not protected. Can anyone explain to me why blogger content is supposedly "fair game," while no one would dream of scraping the London Times, the Wall Street Journal and CNN and trying to repackage it as their own? I thought not. But, the fact is, Allan Jenkins has just as much right to control his content as the New York Times does theirs.

Myth #2: Creative Commons deeds mean you have given up your copyright. Again, untrue. The point of Creative Commons is to allow authors to grant certain rights to others without individual contract. My Creative Commons deed, for example, lets you republish the content of this blog, or make derivative works from it, but only if you credit me every time and only if you do not use the content for commercial gain and only if you apply an identical Creative Commons deed to the resulting work. I do not give up copyright, but I don't require an individual contract if you use the work within those limits.

Sub-myth #2a: Creative Commons deeds are not enforceable. That's going to depend on jurisdiction, of course, but consider this. If the deed is not valid, then the author released no rights. So you are back to square 1:  author has full copyright.

Myth #3: RSS feeds are fresh content for the taking. Larry Borsato exposed some (since defunct) scammers last year. RSS-feeds are publications, just like the magazine that comes through your door each month. See Myth #1.

SillyBilly #1: Publishing RSS feeds is like leaving your bike at the end of your driveway: You are asking for it to be stolen. No, publishing RSS feeds is like publishing a book, or a magazine article, or making a radio show. Just as I don't expect my magazine articles to be ripped off and republished -- without attribution and without pay -- I don't expect my feed to be scraped. Theft is theft.

Sub-SillyBilly #1a: It's your fault for publishing full feeds instead of excerpts. How I publish is irrelevant.

SillyBilly #2: The splogger is driving you traffic... why complain? Few serious bloggers worry about, know, or even check their traffic numbers. Why would they? In a Long Tail world, I care about who, not how many. What I do care dearly about is my public reputation. A splogger repackaging my content can only harm that reputation by wrapping my words in AdSense ads that may be pornographic at worst, irrelevant at best. Moreover, known sploggers -- and more importantly,  the sites they link to -- are penalized by Google, so my site reputation is diminished by a splogger.

Readers, what do you think?

Technorati Tags: bitacle, jesus angelo glez, long tail, splogger, splog, google adsense, creative commons, copyright

Tagged as: Scams