« Tom Adelstein and Government IT | Main | TechNewsRadio Interview »

Blatant Ripoff?

I’m not sure what to make of this. Last month, I was interviewed (for about an hour) by Celeste Biever who was writing a story on InfoCard for New Scientist. The story came out yesterday. Also yesterday, I got a Google News alert that pointed me at this story from TMCnet. The story seems to be the New Scientist story, at least the first few paragraphs are the same—New Scientist puts the rest of the story behind a paywall.

The TMCnet story references New Scientist, but provides no link and doesn’t say that Celeste Biever is the author. TMCnet pops up ads and is filled with ads, so I can only image that they take content from anywhere and republish it. Is this a blatant ripoff, or am I missing something?

In any event, if you’re looking to understand InfoCard, this Register story is pretty good and you won’t have to pay for it or endure in-your-face advertising to do so.

Posted by windley on April 1, 2006 11:59 AM

See related posts:

2 Comments

TMCNet and Red Nova appear to both simply reprint online content without permission but noting the origin, which is odd. They are both part of Google and Yahoo's news monitoring, which I've tried to get revoked. Red Nova is particularly bad, and I've reported them to a host of sources whose copyright they've violated -- and had not a single response from those sources (Christian Science Monitor and other large pubs).

This appears to be a common way to build up a link farm, or in this case, an Ad farm. The ripped off content is certainly a search engine optimization exploit, which boosts the site's page rank by delivering what the search engine identifies as timely and related content. It's going to get worse before it gets better since search engine algorithms will have a difficult time differentiating this type of site from a legitimate blog post, which has quoted your work for purpose that might be covered by fair-use.