I've noticed several threads in the content creation forum where the buyer is telling people to rewrite articles from other websites. Not their own websites, mind you, but other websites in their niche. I'm rather surprised that this is allowed by DigitalPoint as it is a flagrant copyright violation in most countries. I've done a few jobs rewriting materials but only materials that the webmaster owns. Most of these threads point out how easy it is and therefore should be much less than the "average" rate of .01/wd. This is another thing I hate to read. If it's so easy, why are they not doing it themselves? Some people's children. Tina G
I agree - it's disgusting, and people like that deserve far worse than I could possibly say publicly here. If you see threads that are questionable, use the report post button. However, we can't always act. It depends entirely on the specific thread.
At first, I thought that these people asking for rewrites are those who either want to improve their existing content or those who have been given poorly-written ones by the 'writers' they hired. Thanks for putting a light on this issue.
If your rewriting your own content that's your own business, if it's someone elses that's a whole different matter. I wouldn't expect it to stop in the BST anytime soon though. People are selling warez, pirated templates and techniques that go behind blackhat to become absolutely illegal. Meanwhile all that is done by mods is to ban people for double posting. Insanity.
Not true Melog - when we're provided with proof of warez, we do get involved. However, we don't troll BST looking for it - there isn't enough time in the day; nor enough mods. If you see warez being sold, report it including a link to the original site or any proof that it's not a legal copy (a link to the original publisher's site which clearly states there are no resale rights is proof enough for it to be removed). The same is true of pirated templates. We've banned plenty of people for these practices. What we cannot do is punish someone because they might do something illegal (and it's much harder to prove a rewritten article was stolen over selling illegal software, as it's not identical to the original).
Not if it's a complete re-write. You can't copyright an idea, just the specific form of words that the idea is expressed in. So a complete re-write isn't a copyright violation. On balance, this is probably just about right. For instance, if AT&T had been allowed to 'copyright' the *idea* of a UNIX-style operating system, we would never had had Linux. And JK Rowling would have been infringing Ursula Le Guin's 'copyright' on the *idea* of a school for wizards. Etc, etc. I'm afraid that re-writing articles in this way falls into the category of things that aren't illegal, but (for me, anyway) are unethical. But then, there are a lot of people out there who appear to think that Ethics is an English county somewhere near Sussex...
ceemage - Not quite true. It depends entirely where you live. No amount of "rewriting" in the US gets you off the hook for copyright infringement, which I know has been discussed a few times in the past (with direct citation to our copyright office). A rewrite is considered a derivative work, which makes it infringement. If something is used and cited as a source, along with other sources, personal experiences, etc., then it wouldn't be a derivative work, and no rights would be violated. The basic point is that you can't re-write something from a single source. Rewriting the actual content of an article without contributing new content isn't quite the same thing as just using an idea like the examples you mentioned (with Rowling for example, you may have a similar theme but it's not simply the same creation with some different wording). You're right about simple ideas not being protected though. For example, I developed a one page marketing plan template and wrote an instructional article on how to use it. The idea of a "one page marketing plan" isn't protected, so anyone is free to create their own or write an article about using one. However, they can't take the specific and original sections of mine, plus those descriptions / instructions, and the template itself, and just change some words and call it their own - that's infringement. Again though, I see you're not US-based, so the rules may be different where you are.
I stand corrected. Although I wonder how, on that basis, the IBM PC compatible BIOSes were ruled legal, since they were (in effect) the computer equivalent of "rewriting an article." Actually, copyright law tends to be more consistent across different jurisdictions than most law, mainly due to the various international copyright treaties. US and EU copyright law is very similar, for instance. What tends to vary, in practice, is the local authorities' enthusiasm for pursuing violators, especially in the Far East...