"start-up aims to make --being plagiarized-- profitable."
The article by Clifford-Marsh states:
Attributor's model is based on scanning web pages and identifying articles produced by participating publishers. It will then inform the ad network that sells inventory on the website that it must pass on a share of the revenue to the copyright holder.
However, in order to succeed it needs to work in partnership with ad networks run by Google and Yahoo!, which have been reluctant to back the venture. Attributor aims to take a cut of the ad money to run its service.
The blog Democurmudgeon ["A liberal journey into the depths of conservative deception and Republican failures" ] noted: Looking at traffic data, Attributor calculated that five times as many people read each article on pirate sites as on the site of the [original] publisher.
The blog also asserted an advantage of the blog over the original publisher:
Blog “pirates” have the reputation of being news aggregators. This collection of specific reporting is a blog “pirates” advantage over the sites that originate the stories, and a benefit to those same sites that receive the linked attribution. For instance, I often go back to blog “pirates” that aggregate the most stories I’m interested in. Searching out these same topics would be prohibitively time consuming. In fact, I would most likely miss the story completely.
LBE was of course flagrantly plagiarized by a certain author in India, an event now memorialized by fark. Her version of LBE's article likely gets a comparable number of hits to LBE's. That plagiarizing author was an aggregator of sorts.
"This blatant rip-off is unacceptable, even for a blogger.", which included the following advice to would-be plagiarists from fark:
Helpful hint: when plagiarizing an article just go ahead and skip the last paragraph if it is a bio of the real author
**Also, yes, IPBiz checked:
+"A conservative journey into the depths of liberal deception and Democratic failures" - did not match any documents.
**As to the matter of scraping, IPBiz wouldn't transfer any text if one could be sure that Vai Sikahema (and/or Channel 3) wouldn't remove "Rutgers is Wrong" or Lucent/Alcatel wouldn't dispose of the Beasley report on Schon. But stuff gets removed. It's there one day, and gone the next.