Splashpress Scraping?

Probably a better explanation than the title entails:

1. A writer employed by Splashpress plagiarized, against company policy, and unknowingingly to the company
2. Perhaps the blog was purchased by Splashpress post-plagiarism

In either case, I know that the Splashpress people will take this content down as soon as they read this thread. Thanks for bringing it to their attention.

Well, looking at the dates I can tell pretty conclusively that this isn't scraping. The copies often appeared months after the original was posted and, most likely, if the articles were scraped by any technological means they would have appeared at almost the same time.

That being said, I can not say for certain what did happen. I've forwarded this case on to some people at SplashPress and I certainly expect they will answer this one way or another.

In addition to what Ryan said, I would add that it is also possible, since most of the content came from the same blog, that the use could be intentional. The names, however, don't seem to support that as the Typepad URL also hurts that theory.

I'm not going to jump to conclusions until I hear from SplashPress. However, as someone who does write for them (At the Blog Herald) I can say with no small degree of certainty that they do not tolerate plagiarism and, if that is indeed what is going on, they will resolve this quickly.

I feel comfortable saying that, if plagiarism is what is going on, it was taking place both without the knowledge or permission of SplashPress.

I won't venture any further guesses until I get a reply back.

Thank you very much for bringing this to our attention.

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

Ok, I've gotten in touch with SplashPress and have some more information for you.

First, it appears that the articles in question were posted or written for the site before it was acquired by SplashPress. They have requested that the posts in question be removed and we should hear from the seller of the blog soon.

Hopefully this will resolve the matter.

Thank you again for bringing this to our attention.

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

Thanks for all your help thus far. Sorry if I called simple plagiarism "scraping" but I didn't realize that it was a term of art. I wasn't aware of Splashpress until this morning when a friend brought the Philosophy Blog at definitionofphilosophy.com to my attention. The links I originally posted where the ones that he sent to me to show me the evidence of the plagiarism. (We're academics so we take plagiarism seriously as an intellectual crime.) Upon further investigation it appears that almost all of the content on the site must be stolen goods. Going back over the recent posts I discovered the following:

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/chisholm_follow.html
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/chisholm_follow-up/

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/interview_with_2.html
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/interview_with_francis_collins_in_salon/

http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/the_possibility_of_transworld_depravity/
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/the_possibility.html

http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/princeton_semin.html
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/princeton_seminar_on_thomism_and_analytic_philosophy/

http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/cottrill-rolfes_chair_in_catholic_studies/
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/cottrillrolfes.html

http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/pvis_latest_on_the_afe/
http://prosblogion.ektopos.com/archives/2006/08/pvis_latest_on.html

As I go back further I can see even more content from my site has been stolen. Much of what wasn't taken from my site was taken from either Pea Soup (http://peasoup.typepad.com/) or Philosophy Talk (http://theblog.philosophytalk.org/). I can understand thinking someone thinking they could steal from a few academics, but Philosophy Talk is a syndicated program on National Public Radio. So there is a lot more content to be removed than what I originally pointed out. After all the plagiarized material is removed I'd be surprised to find that there was anything left of the site.

If Splashpress bought this blog then it must have been very recently, because there is plenty of recently posted plagiarized material. I'd be surprised to learn that anyone from Splashpress actually read the offending site. Wouldn't it stand out that the site doesn't have a consistent voice, this being the case because much of the content is obviously plagiarized from so many different authors. I'm bothered by the fact that the plagiarism is so obvious, and yet no one at Splashpress picked up on it. A few minutes with Google would have shown where the content originally came from. I'd think that Splashpress would do a little due diligence before purchasing a site.

Hi all,

I would go with #2 as Ryan noted above. And I would like to thank Jonathan for helping clarify things, especially with Splashpress Media not tolerating plagiarism.

The site "Definition of Philosophy" was acquired by the company way before it became "Splashpress Media" and with that, much of the content on the site was produced by the original owner/authors. In the course of our ownership of the site, the company had also employed several contributors, and it is also one possibility that they may have put in content that is not originally theirs (without appropriate attribution)--something we shall also check on.

While we would like to ensure the quality of content in each site we launch/produce/acquire, it is sometimes not possible to check each and every post and entry for plagiarism. We still do this to the extent humanly possible, though.

I will be removing these errant posts ASAP. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, mmulins.

J. Angelo Racoma
Editor in Chief, Splashpress Media

mmullins, as someone who runs his own network of sites I can attest that it is nearly impossible to micro-manage the content of your writers.

"Wouldn't it stand out that the site doesn't have a consistent voice"
-No, when you're running dozens of blogs, you don't have the time to know them each as intimately as you presume. In your parlance, it would be like grading a class worth of term papers each day. It just can't happen.

"the content is obviously plagiarized from so many different authors"
-Post-hoc on a single site analysis this is easy to say. It's also easy to say while doing an isolated analysis. But consider the context, and you'll probably be more understanding.

"A few minutes with Google would have shown where the content originally came from"
-Again, when managing hundreds of sites (in the case of Splashpress) a few minutes turns into a few days.

"I'd think that Splashpress would do a little due diligence before purchasing a site."
-Again, when buying and selling dozens of sites per month (as Splashpress seems to do), due diligence must often be sacrificed to the god's of utility.

As someone who manages dozens (not hundreds like Splashpress) of blogs and who buys and sells blogs on a monthly basis, I can confirm how easy it is to not catch something like this until the deal is done.

I recently purchased a blog for $10,000 - very well respected. I later found out that over 60% of its content was plagiarized from major news sources. The reason I didn't know about it before the purchase? Because in Google, my site looked like the source of the content.

Having had graduate training in philosophy, and subsequently making the transition into online work, I can tell you that there is at least one clear lesson I've learned: it's easy to do analysis and infer easy solutions until one gets to the level of execution and implementation.

Having said that, we all agree that the content needs to be removed. Hopefully Splashpress will act on this immediately.

Hi, My name is Douglas Portmore. I'm one of four editors of PEA Sou, a blog that the site "Definition of Philosophy" has plagiarized. Thanks for removing some of the plagiarized posts. Here are some others that need to be removed.

[ December 27th, 2006 ]
Consequentialism and ‘the value of the action itself’
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/ethics/consequentialism_and_the_value_of_the_action_itself/

[ June 27th, 2007 ]
Kudos to Prosblogion!
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/kudos_to_prosblogion/

[ March 9th, 2007 ]
Parfit’s CtM, Chapter 12: Consequentialism
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/parfits_ctm_chapter_12_consequentialism/

[ March 7th, 2007 ]
Parfit’s CtM, Chapter 11: Contractualism
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/parfits_ctm_chapter_11_contractualism/

[ March 5th, 2007 ]
Dreier on Drawing the Realist/Irrealist Distinction
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/dreier_on_drawing_the_realistirrealist_distinction/

[ April 1st, 2007 ]
The Will Of Reason
http://www.definitionofphilosophy.com/general/ethics_alert-2/

You might consider removing all posts, since you now have able reason to believe that the author who posted these posts is not to be trusted.

Best, Doug

Hi Doug,

Thanks for pointing these out. Duly noted. We'll take these posts down. We apologize to all concerned for any inconvenience this incident may have caused. I guess it's time to make a more thorough review, particularly of this site.

Cheers,

angelo

First off, I want to think J. Angelo Racoma for his swift response here. I think he is handling the situation about as well as any human can and I feel certain that a more in-depth analysis of past works will ongoing for some time.

As someone who checks for plagiarism a great deal, it tends to be a very difficult project that resists automation. With so much reason to suspect this author, I'm sure that there will be some action here.

Also, I agree highly with Ryan but I would like to add something to it. We have to remember that the New York Times was fooled by Jayson Blair for over four years before they discovered his plagiarizing ways. The NYT is a major media company with all of the resources of the Western world at its disposal.

Sure, mistakes were made on their part, they could have done more in the early stages, but apart from spending money on software, which still requires human intervention to confirm plagiarism, or vetting every story through a cadre of lawyers, there is little that can be done.

One of my services in consulting is working with editors who discovered a plagiarist on staff. Hindsight truly is 20/20 on these matters and they always beat themselves up over it. However, sometimes, there is little that one can do.

I would not be opposed to SplashPress doing spot checks of work using Copyscape or another program, but I realize that checking every work before publication or soon after is almost impossible when you own hundreds of blogs and have a finite staff.

If the NYT can get bit by this even worse and still be forgiven, I'm sure that Splashpress can get the same. What it comes down to now is how they handle the plagiarism and that is something I will be helping with and watching.

However, it seems to already be clear that this is far from the status quo and certainly not a tolerated practice.

Thank you again for pointing this out.

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

Nice and fast reaction. I appreciate that.

Mr. Racoma,

Thanks for the reply and the explanation. As you can imagine I'm anxious to see my plagiarized material expunged from the site as quickly as possible. I was wondering in what kind of time frame we can expect the plagiarized content to be removed?

-Matthew

Jonathan,

Perhaps you could be of help in explaining a couple of things to me.

How long do companies have to respond on issues like this?

I'm struggling to understand why it is the case that five days after being provided with evidence that the Definition of Philosophy site contains plagiarized material that material has yet to be removed. In the time since I first started this thread I've seen to posts go up on the offending site. It seems reasonable to think that if someone has both the time and access to put up new posts, then they have the time and access to take down the old. I thought that a new media company would be able to move faster on an issue like this, especially since the Editor in Chief of the organization is supposed to be on the case. I find it hard to imagine that any mainstream media outlet would let such material remain online for so long.

What are our rights if the company fails to act?

I take it that under the DMCA parties have the right to litigate? Perhaps you could help spell out what rights someone has in these kinds of cases.

Matthew- I am personally very anxious to see this resolved. All these posts were on the blog when we bought it, saved as drafts.

If I gave you admin access to the blog, would you be prepared to take down all the plagiarized posts yourself? I know this would be unconventional, but at least then we can be 100% sure the job has been done properly.

My sincere apologies on this.

> How long do companies have to respond on issues like this?

There's no single answer to that I'm afraid. I've had some companies respond in just a few hours, others have taken two weeks or longer. Google, for example, can be measured on a calendar while Livejournal requires a stopwatch.

> What are our rights if the company fails to act?

The DMCA doesn't technically apply here. Since SP is not the host of the site, but the owner, they don't qualify for protection under the DMCA.

If you continue to be unsatisfied with the response of SP, you could consider filing a DMCA notice with the host. However, looking at ssloschin's reply, I seriously doubt that is necessary. You'll most likely get a faster and more thorough response through that method.

To answer the larger question about what if a host doesn't do anything, then yes, under the DMCA they could be subject to liability. That is the whole intent of the DMCA, to protect hosts as long as they cooperate by providing them "safe harbor". If they step outside of that harbor by not responding to notices, they can be held liable.

However, looking at the reply above, I would take him up on that offer. In over 600 cases, I've never received that kind of offer. That is exceedingly rare and almost unheard of.

Though I admit it is something of a hassle, this is also a fairly unusual situation. A large company owning a problem site that seems to be doing a non-thorough job of deletion. I agree that there is something wrong here and that the site is not cooperating fully, but it does seem like the higher ups at Splashpress are trying to resolve this even if the site itself is dragging its feet.

I'm pretty sure that Splashpress will take other actions against the admins of this site. But, since it doesn't usually meddle in the day-to-day affairs of the blogs it owns, it is rare that SP has to wield this kind of control.

I hope that you and Splashpress are able to get this resolved to your satisfaction. I'm going to start following this a little more closely and make sure that this gets resolved.

I agree that there is no reason that it should take this long, then again, I've had battles with Google and Yahoo about even longer delays...

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

saloschin,

Thanks for the reply. I suppose I could take down the posts if I had access, though as you say that's a bit unconventional. Doug and I have both detailed a number of posts above that could be taken down right now. So, another option might be for us to simply send you all the links. If you want to discuss this option off the forum I can be reached by emailing matthew at ektopos.com.

Jonathan,

Thanks for the details. While I'm familiar with the technical aspects of running a blog I've never had to deal with these kinds of issues. I suspect that our site has been plagiarized more times than I'm aware of. I asked about our rights in part for future reference. So, I take it then that in dealing with hosts these issues fall under the DMCA, and when dealing with individuals (or companies in this case) the issue would fall under regular copyright law? However, there is no specific window of time after which an issue becomes actionable.

I'd wager that your site has been plagiarized more than you realize. Then again, I'd say that about my sites and any other Web site on the Web. It is pure logic that we can't catch them all.

You are correct that matters with hosts are under the DMCA and matters such as these fall under traditional copyright.

As far as time frames go, they are vague in both areas. The DMCA simply uses the word "expeditiously" to describe how quickly a host should take action. No one quite knows what the heck that means. Your guess, quite literally, is as good as mine.

In traditional copyright, this would likely be an issue of secondary infringement. Since Splashpress didn't commit the infringement, an independent contractor did, their liability would center around if they induced the infringement in any way, which it does not appear that they did, and what reasonable steps they took to mitigate or prevent the infringement.

Once again, a legal gray area filled with broad terms. What is reasonable? Well, one judge has already ruled that there is no need to prevent ALL infringement, just as much as as is feasible for the company. However, this area of law is just now being explored since the Grokster ruling. It's going to be years before we get anything concrete.

This whole matter is very tricky legally and I hesitate to even hazard a guess as to how things would shake out. However, given what I've seen in my work, a week is not an incredible length of time (I just this morning got responses to DMCA notices I sent last Friday).

If saloschin were not being so forthcoming, I would think this situation would fare much worse for them. But it does seem that they are trying to resolve this and, in matters such as this, intent does mean a great deal.

Still, there are a lot of unanswered legal questions in this field. Hopefully, as the dust settles from the Grokster ruling we can begin to get some clues.

Sorry for the long reply, I know it is a real snoozer...

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

All posts that were saved in the blog when we bought it, i.e: posts prior to October, 2007, have now been taken down. I would like to say that I bought this blog from a philosophy student (top of his class) at Oxford, so am amazed at the fact that so much was plagiarized. Mea culpa for not checking.

I hope this brings closure to the matter.

Thanks for all the help, Jonathan- & patience, Matthew. Also support from Ryan and Angelo.

p.s. I have had a response from original DOP seller-:

"I think a script was used to pull in posts automatically from other
blogs as a news aggregator of philosophy blogs, a previous template I
had on there had a line including where the post came from and a
credit etc. But it was experimental and more something I was playing
with rather than using for any length of time. That may explain why
those posts were always drafts. I wish I could remember. What a pain
though, Im sorry!"

Saloschin,

I had noted in my earlier reply that it didn't appear to be scraping due to the huge delay between original and the copy.

Am I reading this right that the post was aggregated and then stored as a draft for some length of time and then activated later for some reason?

I'm just making sure I understand what happened, this is purely for academic purposes at this point as the matter seems to be resolved.

Thank you for the info!

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com

Jonathan- yes, that's exactly what happened. They were saved drafts that I published over time, thinking I could maximize the value of what I thought was unique content.

Thanks for the info! Just wanted to make sure I heard it all right!

Jonathan Bailey - plagiarismtoday.com