When Is a Splog a Splog?

Mark Cuban brings up a few interesting points in response to my post yesterday on blog content “theft.” He's asking whether a Creative Commons license conveys to an individual the right to use an automated program to repackage and re-distirbute content with attribution. He goes a step further by defining a splog as any hosted website that only uses redirected or copied content and doesn't add any unique value. Finally, Mark and others also noted in comments that my old Creative Commons license was in invitation to be splogged. I have since updated it. (Thanks to everyone who offered advice.)

Mark's definition of a splog is very broad. It raises bigger questions. For example where do automated aggregation sites like CNET Blog 100 Stream and Phillipp Lenssen's Feeds fall? I'm certainly not crying that they're linking to me. Additionally, as Alek notes on Mark's blog and Mike Masnick also indicates, you or I can't determine if a blogger's content is actually licensed for use by the reblogger or simply a bot. For example, months ago I agreed to let WebProNews republish my content. How would you know that?

On a related note, there was a total vacuum of information on Podcast Rebroadcast, one of the re-bloggers. He/she has since informed me that blogs are often blocked by schools and the site was designed to fill the void a resource for students and teachers. But again, how was I to know what the intent was? I was never contacted.

Content “theft” or whatever you want a call it has been an issue long before the Internet became a mass medium. It mushroomed over the past 10 years and now that everyone is a publisher, it will only get worse. As Nicolai says, it's a natural byproduct of RSS. Maybe Nick is right, the best solution is to ignore it. I surely can. Google, Technorati, IceRocket et al, however, can't be as cavalier.

Technorati Tags: Creative Commons, IceRocket, Mark Cuban, Spam, Splog, Splogs

Comments

[Jim]

Ugh, that comment from Rebroadcast makes me sick. They blame you for your mild irritation at having your original work stolen. That's ridiculous! There may have been no intent to harm or profit. So?

And I still say their attribution can in no way be termed sufficient.

I'm not sure I completely buy the blog blocking argument either... though it may be worth checking out as it would be an issue about which you might be able to make a positive contribution.

[Max]

I think the key phrase here is "add any unique value." CNET and Phillipp both have sites filled with original content. And the feeds they offer are presented in such a way that there is value added beyond the content contained within the feeds. The splogs that reprinted your content are not adding any value in the way they present your content and they don't provide any original content of their own.

Another characteristic of splogs is that they're typically anonymous. If someone is using a blogger's feed anonymously, it's because they know they're doing something unsavory. Anonymity in this context should automatic flag such a site as a splog.

[Tish Grier]

The problem can only get worse if the emphasis on what bloggers do is put solelly on their content. If what bloggers do is not just provide content, but also create community and conversation, splogs will be seen for what they are.

[Jeremy Pepper]

And this is transforming marketing, media and public relations how?

Heck, send them thank you notes. The post generated a lot of comments, got you onto Memeorandum, got you onto BlogMaverick.

But, Steve, there is a lot more to life than traffic and logs. Maybe this is me being naive, but I thought the whole purpose of blogs was the conversation and sharing information. Heck, anyone wants to take what I wrote and republish it with attribution and not changing what I wrote, that's fine with me. It's about knowledge, and spreading information.

[Mike Masnick]

My issue is that the line gets drawn very finely. How do you distinguish between the sites that you claim are "stealing" your content and something like this:

http://www.bloglines.com/preview?siteid=3544300

Bloglines is republishing your entire feed. They're a commercial entity. Is that "stealing"? Are they adding unique value? Depends on your perspective.

Both the sites you called out may be adding unique value to readers of those sites who prefer to have their content aggregated by those sites.

I can understand the complaint if the source isn't credited, but it appears that they do credit you -- though, it could be done in a much more forthright manner.

So, I'm afraid the "adding unique value" test is very problematic.

I'm with Nick, on this one. Your best bet is to ignore them. In fact, by bringing this up, you probably gave two sites a lot more attention than they deserve.

For us, whenever we find sites doing things like this, we've taken a twofold approach:

(1) Asking nicely for better attribution, while thanking them for finding our info so useful. This often works, because the people involved actually do want to credit you, and just aren't aware of the best way to do it.

(2) Ignoring them altogether. In our experience, any site that's sleazey enough to take your content without adequately crediting you isn't long for this world anyway. They almost always disappear within a month.

[Jeroen Sangers]

I thought Creative Commons licenses were non-revocable, i.e. content published under a certain license can always be used under the conditions of that licence. Therefore your updated licence is only valid for new content.

[Jonathan]

I don't know if ignoring the problem is the best solution, but there are ways of handling coypright infringement without creating a great deal of ruckus. If you put some thought into your antiplagiarism strategy, it only takes a few minutes a week to handle cases that come up.

Granted, you can't stop every case, but by taking action you do create a deterrent and that does cause others who might reconsider.

Personally, I've noticed a sharp drop in plagiairism since I've started taking an active approach to dealing with it.

[Jake Ludington]

An updated Creative Commons license should provide recourse for any future theft of new content by Splogs, but according to the terms of Creative Commons licensing, anything published under a specific license remains under that license for the full term, so people could continue to publish your old content indefinitely.