Copyright Infringement, Intellectual Property and Pirating

Content can and does bring traffic, it also brings the search engine visitors. Duplicate content 'aka' stealing ones content and putting it on your site can cripple the original if done correctly, tripping a duplicate content penalty

 

Well, my content isn't duplicate content. However, I disagree with you about SERP enforced duplicate content penalties.

 

Yep, I agree, Grim, as I earlier also said.

Puzzling:

It isn't true that content is meaningless in making a website's worth, so all the rest about stealing content from another's website falls on the sword, right away.

Even if it were true, and content means nothing, I am puzzled by Guerilla's stand here, as he has been among the most condemnatory of our "valueless, consumerist society," etc. A stand I agree with, by the way, as I have said: I deplore our materialism and shallowness, our embracing of shallow crap. I stand with the flag of totalitarianism, if it would rid our country of all reality T.V., and Jerry Springer. (sarcasm).

However, to say that website content means nothing, and what matters is the "other stuff" to bring traffic - what the hell happened to "principles," and "substance" over "fluff?"

Now, Guerilla, I have to admit that as always, it gets old to discuss. You have been thoroughly provided with where your ideas fall false here, yet you will continue to play casuistries, in my opinion, and though it is seen by many, to continue to go point by point and refute a new round of false positions takes up far too much time. In your last post to me, alone, choosing one:

You are an anarchist, if your body of stated thoughts on this forum are to be evaluated fully, in my opinion, and I conclude you do not believe in the concept of law and at least some measure of a state to the maintenance of good society.

That said, because I generally find myself at the polar end of your viewpoints does not mean I am the opposite to you here - that "the Law" is a thing, a unitary substance, and further that I believe all laws are "good."

In this thread, I never talked about "The Law," monolith. In my world, there are good laws, and there are stupid laws. A law in a township during the Jim Crow era telling blacks they had to drink from another fountain, well, I consider that a bad law. A law saying, "hey, not a bad idea - people should own their work. This encourages prosperity, innovation, and progress - cool!" is, in my opinion, a good law. Your constant referral to the slave era in trying to denigrate points of law is a very poor argument, and a very false premise.

This is what I constantly return to: we exist together in an odd thing, society, a constructed way to live with each other without clubbing each other whenever we get an itch under our armpits. So, we do the best we can. Worldwide, and sprinkled throughout history, patents have been seen to be a good thing, as a concept. To be tweaked, evolved, more fairly and adequately applied, to be sure. But not tossed because Guerilla thinks my opus is his to copy and use at will, without my permission, and without any compensation to me whatsoever.

Anyway, just one example, and I don't really enjoy the eternity of rounds to correct your misstatements, and refute your errors.

I will join Supper, again, and as he and I have both asked several times, please provide your websites on this thread so that we may all do what we would with them. Your attempted dodge:

Is hogwash, in my opinion: "content is meaningless," and it therefore doesn't matter who has your "stuff," or what they would do with it. To be true to your philosophy, you should without hesitation provide us the links to the websites you claim to master.

To be honest,

I think this is likely a truism.

 

I think his credibility went out the window when he made the claim that content is of no value. Just as the mind that designs the space ship has no value.

He holds such strong ideals. He sure can talk the talk, but when it comes to his "sacrifice" in walking the walk, he just can't do it.

 

Didn't intend to sound as if I was accusing you of it being

 

I think I am with guerilla on this one. I could not care less if people look at my sites. I don't not post them here because I fear someone stealing the content. Rather, it is because I know people would click bomb or engage in other nefarious acts. I know that would be exposing the addresses I have on file with registrars. I see little benefit to warrant those risks. Nor do I expect anyone else to do so.

 

NPT, you ever buy or sell a website?

Good, because if all else fails, I was planning to win on endurance.

The content without SERP or traffic is meaningless. It's the equivalent of an unwritten book or an unsung song. When you buy a site here @ DP or even on SP, the going rate is 10 months income. give or take. If your site does not have income, it is relatively worthless or very difficult to price.

I've bought article content here from Jackuul, and outsourced service to webwork as far as the P&R crowd. Not to mention what I have contracted offsite, conduct on other sites like GAF or RAC.

I am not under any obligation to show you my sites. I don't think you even have one.

Nothing gets past you. Nothing!

 

It's a person's choice as to whether he want's to reveal his websites or not. There are myriad reasons why one might not want to. Showing off all your websites doesn't imply honesty nor does withholding them mean dishonesty.

Now he may not care if i copy his content, but what if i vandalize his site .....

 

You are supposed to be ignoring me until I provide you with a website.

And second, I've been at this a lot longer than you, and I didn't take a photo of my first Clickbank check. Or my first Adsense check. Or my first TLA payment. Or my first Paypal payment. Or my first personal check payment. etc...

You probably did. But that's ok. I don't have any sites with high enough PR and backlink counts (individually) to push someone else's content effectively. I dabble in madlib database sites, and machine translated foreign language blogging.

I might do a syndicated (duplicate content) news site, I was debating using Vivvo CMS, but I need some writers to supplement it, and my goal was to do a liberty oriented paper, combining the libertarian, truther, JBS, Counterpunch far right left and libertarian stuff. But that's a personal project for another day.

Bingo. Like I said, my content is worthless. My revenue is not.

 

I don't think syndicated is the same as duplicate content. Check my sig in a month or two and you might see something that could help you out.

 

It's not the same. But there are people in this thread who probably do not understand the difference.

I've got a lot of tools. PM me when you get a chance. I'm interested to know (broadly) what you're talking about.

 

Brown, not sure if you've read the thread or not, but that's fine.

To the heart of the question: how about all the code or script that you've ever written - would you be fine with just giving it to us? Or, to put it more in the breath of this thread, would you be fine if we took whatever work you've created, and did what we desired with it, your permission notwithstanding?

More broadly, what are your thoughts:

@Guerilla:

I've not bought or sold any websites, though I've created a couple in the past - letting them both fold a couple of years back. Webmastering is not really my thing, I don't enjoy it, though I'm intrigued; I do enjoy pen and paper. Why?

Again with the "content is worthless" strain, and traffic is the "stuff" of worth. So, in Guerilla land, content does nothing to create and maintain traffic? A blank website with a ton of backlinks is equal to a content-rich website with the same amount of backlinks, for instance? And backlinks are equally likely to happen with a blank website as they are with a content-rich website? Approaching it from the other side, backlinks from websites that have zero content will aid you as much as backlinks from content-rich websites?

Why did you buy article content from Jackuul? Isn't it your right to just take it, or indeed, take anyone's work, at will? Why toss money down the drain when you've the right to take something for free?

Well, thanks, but this isn't news. It's what you do. And, between you and me, (whisper): all else has failed.

My continuing the discussion is out of a desire for an open dialogue with the others taking part as to what it is you are advocating, and in my opinion that is theft. The implications of embracing such a philosophy are important, in my opinion.

 

Well, I was just curious because you're going after my specific points on web content, and how sites have value (in my opinion). I was curious to know if you ever bought or sold a site and understood how the market typically values them.

It's a placeholder? There are a lot of different models out there NPT. Some people practice arbitrage, affiliate and bum marketing, some people monetize their traffic, run off donations, link sales, paid reviews. The web has a lot of variety. Some people may value their content because they made it, and we always tend to over value our own creations. But without traffic or monetization, the site is not worth much to me commercially. And that is the debate. The supposed financial loss of someone using someone else's IP.

Obviously not. That's a silly example outside the discussion. There is a cost, either in time or money to generate content. If I can rank with less or little content, and my goal is to monetize SERP traffic, then who cares? One person who wrote for me, I gave her 2, 3 or 4 word keyphrases, and a total word count. She could have written anything related to the keyphrase. It didn't matter to me or my application.

I don't have all night to teach SEM. Simply put, I don't wait 4 years for a domain to age and accumulate natural backlinks. I aggressively market sites a variety of ways. And yeah, the content on the site linking to me is probably important. Maybe more important than my own content.

This is a complete strawman you have constructed and have repeated continually. I don't know if you are being intentionally obstinate, or you really cannot understand my position.

I have never said I have a "right" to take anything from anyone. I don't believe that people have a "right" to download music, or movies or videogames.

What I do believe, is that IP is a flawed concept, which explains why people do this stuff, in spite of it not being a right, and being illegal because both ideas are based on IP being something which can be controlled, limited, contained. It is not possible, because (particularly in the digital medium) IP has a scarcity of almost zero! And things which are infinite or near infinite in supply (like air, water etc) cost NOTHING!

It's basic supply/demand that if supply is infinite, the price is zero. Forget whether it is moral in your opinion or not. I'm not making a moral argument. I'm saying that when supply exceeds demand by so much, the product is not very good, or it's not property. Those are the only two conclusions I am drawing from what is a pretty simple scenario.

I paid Jackuul for the articles because they had a labor cost. I wasn't going to pay him to think up articles. He had to actually write and format them. He had to take them from being IP to property. Then they had value to me.

Separate the personal arguments against me from my argument about IP as property. How I do business, what my websites contain, what I will pay and what for, are irrelevant IMO. The discussion is whether or not IP is actually property. If we define property, does IP fit that definition?

 

If i had a site called absolutelyawesomearticle.info with awesome content but that had 0 traffic and wasn't even in google, it'd get 5 bucks when sold.

If i have article.com with boring stupid content and 1 million traffic every day and was #1 on google for every search term, the website would sell big.

Content has value, but often people don't often seem to consider that value. It is overshadowed by google results, pagerank, domain name and other stuff. But readers value content more than webmasters.

 

absolutely-awesome-article123.info

 

That's a misstatement of what I said.

It's a simple question: does content help drive traffic to a website?

 

I was talking about how value of content is overshadowed by other things.
Not that content is obsolete.

Content does drive traffic. But it isn't enough on it's own.

 

Guerilla, you have a very poor habit of retreating to this, when backed into a corner, to rely on something along the lines of "I can't debate with someone who doesn't know about [X]." One from many of your toolbox, but it is useless. While I no longer do websites, I'm a reasonably bright guy, and learned a good deal when involved in doing them.

Yes, because you have constructed a tautology:

And this has already been gone over, more than once. I'm not interested in simply repeating cycles of "you're wrong, I'm right" without new information.

Thank god these endless cascades of repeats at least eschew semantic bullshit: "Rights." 'Kay, may we be safe in saying you do not believe the following are theft, then? Is it, uh, "okay" to do these things, then, in your book? Because from your statements, damn me if I didn't conclude you believe, yes, very much so, it's uh, okay to do them:

The rest is all repeat, and as I said above, I'm not interested.

Yes, well, let's not go overboard, could be - but then, I really don't know anything about what drives traffic 'n all, so likely not - right? Anyway, now that we at least both agree content matters, and in fact matters a lot, in terms of the worth of links coming to you, we are changing the paradigm of this debate.

 

Absolutely. Agreed.

But that wasn't what I said, it has never been my point, and it isn't the question in this thread.

Guerilla has stated, several times, that content is worthless (until perhaps unwittingly stumbling into an admission that it does have worth, quite substantial worth, in driving traffic to a website due to the content of the backlink site). And, moreover, as it doesn't belong to its creator, he is free to use it at will, for whatever purpose he deems is in his interest - without the creator's knowledge or permission.

Care to provide thought on the three examples - "website, book, cd" - theft? Not theft?

 

Copy/paste of content so as to make a profit is theft.

Yes, normally. There are exceptions, like the bible and other free books like those from project gutenberg.

Yes. But if i keep a backup of a cd that i bought for personal purposes. It isn't theft.