Actoguitar.com Is Lifting My Blog Content!

[Robert Irizarry]

I have this blog called http://buildingtheergonomicguitar.blogspot.com/. Its nothing fancy - I started it as a way to document my ergonomic guitar build and as a way for me to collect information on ergonomics. Its nothing fancy but its mine and I've spent some effort on it over the months. For a few months now, I've gotten used to seeing my little blog show up in the first set of results in a google search. BTW - I haven't done anything to promote it - there is just that little on the web about guitars and ergonomics, apparently.

I was googling the web for information on ergonomic guitars and instead of my usual hits on my blog, I came across hits for actoguitar.com using my posts as content! I dug a bit further to find that they're listing my posts in their entirety and they've even created a forum "user" who they list as the contributor for these posts! I saw only a single credit to my actual blog in one of the "posts" but otherwise it would appear to the casual person that this content was the product of a participant on their forum.

I am NOT amused by this and I have contacted them in order to get to the bottom of this.

For those of you who have content published on the web and wish to protect it, you might be interested in the following:

This article on actions to take when someone steals your content (great step-by-step advice):

https://lorelle.wordpress.com/2006/04/10/wh...s-your-content/

This site which searches for copies of your site (actoguitar.com shows up when I search my own, for example) :

http://www.copyscape.com

I'm posting this to my blog as well - maybe they'll steal this too.

[mammoth guitars]

I took a look at the actoguitar site. I wonder who would respond if someone posts a comment?

The forum is listed under Guitar Repair and Design.

[Robert Irizarry]

I took a look at the actoguitar site. I wonder who would respond if someone posts a comment?

The forum is listed under Guitar Repair and Design.

I was wondering that myself but decided to see what response, if any, I would get from the admin.

[psw]

I am very disappointed...

read a few of the entries..."this is a business, a very different kind of business", etc...yeah, rip off! Looks like a way to try and make money via google adds to me...

They have been going about a year and have over 2,000 members/contributors...hmmmm How long did PG take to get that big...

Anyway, it is not surprising when most if not all the contributors are people like Mr ergonomicguitar....hang on, that's YOU...what happens if I email him I wonder? Would you reply, or the thief...kind of like ringing your mobile phone as the thief has made off with it...would he answer?

Little disappointed that I didn't get ripped off, perhaps it's because I dont have a blog as such...just a moster thread in the PG community.

Let us know if you get a response...perhaps we should respond in kind... pete

[spazzyone]

Thats just wrong and a shame. using it without crediting someone is pure theft

and its sad because it will only get worse.

why not leave some fake info on your blog like a encryption

so if you have to prove this problem you have more fire power

[Robert Irizarry]

I appreciate the support, guys. As of this morning, I have not received anything resembling a reply which is to be expected. They also haven't grabbed my latest blog entry on how they're running off with my content but then again there were some delays between my posts and their taking them for use on their site.

I particularly like the description of the site as a new kind of business and their use of the same Creative Commons copyright that I use which clearly states that my content can not be used for commercial endevours - right under their use of my posts are ads about ergonomics!

I'll keep you posted on how this goes.

[ToneMonkey]

Nothing left but to give them a good shoeing then. 3 Goons and a van, say no more

I rekon that theres about 20 or 30 people on here that would sign up and make multiple posts regarding them being "too thick to make their own posts".

[oz tradie]

Nothing left but to give them a good shoeing then. 3 Goons and a van, say no more

You got room for one more? my boots are steelcapped , just the way we like'em

[GuitarGuy]

Nothing left but to give them a good shoeing then. 3 Goons and a van, say no more

You got room for one more? my boots are steelcapped , just the way we like'em

Im in. But all I got is a Louisville slugger.....that good enough?

[Canuck Brian]

I posted.

**edit!**

The thread and the response

Well about 15 minutes after I posted, here's the complete response. The guy's email is available right on the page as well.

Hey Brian,

Thanks for posting. Allow me to make some quick clarifications:

1. We make every attempt to contact the content owner before republishing. There was no contact information on the Building the Ergonomic Guitar blog, so we could not contact the author.

2. You are correct regarding the lack of attribution. The script that pulls the content in from other blogs is supposed to automatically insert a link, as it has for other blogs. There is no excuse for this error and I do apologize for it. I will immediately go back and make this correction as well.

3. We offer 50% of the revenue earned from the ads displayed by content contributors to them. (We expect to increase the percentage given to the original contributor in the future; it is priced very conservatively). The earnings for this blog have been earmarked and can be collected by the blogger at any time. Our internal currency system that allows for all of this to be easily done will be implemented in a day or two.

4. Even though the advantages of this offer to the author should be self-evident at this point, we are always happy to comply with the request of the original author to remove this content. Should he want the content removed, just drop a line, and we'll take it off instantly.

Regarding copyright legality: that is a very murky matter, and certainly not as clear and straightforward as you are suggesting. If any other does not want to syndicate their content, they should not issue an RSS feed -- that's essentially what an RSS feed does, allow for syndication. To issue an RSS feed and then cry illegality when the feed is grabbed and syndicated is confusing at best.

I hope this clears matters up for you. If you'd like, please feel free to send me a private message with the blog author's contact information and I'll be happy to clarify the matter with him.

__________________

ActoGuitar Community Director

Edited August 18, 2006 by Canuck Brian

[kidmercury]

Hello,

My name is Simit Patel, and I run ActoGuitar.com. As this thread states, Canuck Brian posted on ActoGuitar.com, I responded, and also responded on BuildingtheErgonomicGuitar (comment awaiting moderation approval). As is our policy the author has been compensated for syndication of his content, and, per his request, the content has been removed.

To clarify, ActoGuitar is based on the idea of creating and sharing wealth. The more we share, the more incentive there is to create good content, and the more ALL of us can benefit. The idea is to create an economy of sorts that rewards quality content so that we can have a big collection of great guitar content that all of us can learn from. The idea is not theft -- it's actually closer to the opposite -- although given the murky, abstract nature of intellectual property I'm sure there are going to be many misunderstandings. I'm an Internet marketer by trade, and I assure you, if I was interested in stealing, there are much, much, much better ways to go about doing so than what has been done with ActoGuitar.

In any event, I wanted to clarify the objective of ActoGuitar, apologize for any misunderstandings, and invite any of you who would like to share your knowledge/expertise -- and get rewarded for it (or, alternatively, donate those earnings to charity) -- to participate in creating ActoGuitar.

Thanks again for your time and consideration and sincere apologies for any misunderstandings.

[johnsilver]

my boots are steelcapped , just the way we like'em

Blundstones or Redbacks?

Edit: Sorry Robert, didn't mean to hijack a serious thread. I hope this gets sorted out to your satisfaction.

[Robert Irizarry]

First, I’d like to inform the group that the matter has been resolved to my general satisfaction. To Simit Patel’s credit, he responded quickly to my inquiry and immediately took action to remove the content. That said, I am concerned over some of Simit Patel’s comments to Canuck Brian defending his use of my content.

Let’s begin with his first comment to Canuck Brian - “We make every attempt to contact the content owner before republishing. There was no contact information on the Building the Ergonomic Guitar blog, so we could not contact the author.”

I did not list my email address on my blog – that much is true. (It is now available as part of my profile). However, Simit Patel managed to comment on my blog in response to my post about this situation. I’m not sure how he made “every attempt” to contact me without it occurring to him to simply leave a comment requesting the use of my content.

Later, Simit Patel states the following in his response to Canuck Brian - “Regarding copyright legality: that is a very murky matter, and certainly not as clear and straightforward as you are suggesting. If any other does not want to syndicate their content, they should not issue an RSS feed -- that's essentially what an RSS feed does, allow for syndication. To issue an RSS feed and then cry illegality when the feed is grabbed and syndicated is confusing at best.”

Let’s start with RSS feeds. Many sites offer RSS feeds. For example, The NY Times offers RSS feeds. Last time I checked, an RSS feed is not a license to copy content IN ITS ENTIRETY. For confirmation, please see the NY Times legal staff any time you are interested in taking an entire article and publishing it WITHOUT their consent and/or WITHOUT credit to them. Given that you are a musician and writer (with an RSS feed to your blog site) I would venture that you would not be pleased with someone grabbing your music or writings then publishing them as their own.

While quoting or making reference to material is appropriate under the concept of “fair use”, this is not what was on your site. Your site was publishing my blog entries in their entirety and attributing them to a user called “ErgonomicGuitar”. Even my first post, which includes a dedication to my wife, is copied verbatim. The attribution of work to someone other than its owner is commonly known as plagiarism – a concept familiar to the average high school student. Anyone perusing the actoguitar site would think that a user named ErgonomicGuitar was posting original content that is, in fact, my work.

Further, my site is labeled with the Creative Commons banner which indicates that the work is published with certain restrictions for those who wish to make use of it. The license I use clearly indicates my content may not be used for any commercial purpose. Clicking on this banner takes you to a human readable version (not “murky” legalese) of the license and its restrictions. As you indicated in your reply to Canuck Brian, “We offer 50% of the revenue earned from the ads displayed by content contributors to them.” Clearly yours is a commercial venture which my licensing prohibits. As to ignorance regarding Creative Commons, well that too is a tough one since you have such a banner on your site suggesting familiarity with its terms.

Finally, in the spirit of honesty and disclosure, I was sent my “portion” of the revenue – I’m assuming that was 50% of the money your site SHOULD NOT have earned from my content.

[kidmercury]

Let’s start with RSS feeds. Many sites offer RSS feeds. For example, The NY Times offers RSS feeds. Last time I checked, an RSS feed is not a license to copy content IN ITS ENTIRETY. For confirmation, please see the NY Times legal staff any time you are interested in taking an entire article and publishing it WITHOUT their consent and/or WITHOUT credit to them. Given that you are a musician and writer (with an RSS feed to your blog site) I would venture that you would not be pleased with someone grabbing your music or writings then publishing them as their own.

Actually, I would be happy to have my content taken and republished -- the music is already totally free, and the RSS feed is a full feed. I have had my content scraped before and I am generally pleased by this. I even encourage it -- you'll see everything I publish is CC-BY licensed. The economic point is that it is going to be more profitable to give your content away and fund it via advertising than it will be to sell it. Soon, people will be paying to give away their content (think payola).

An RSS feed DOES copy content automatically; it copies it from your web site into the RSS reader of those who grab the feed. Thus, if you issue an RSS feed, presumably you are okay with having your content copied, since that is what an RSS feed does. Some publishers issue partial RSS feeds, which aim to drive the user back to the site; others put ads in their RSS feeds to earn revenue via syndication; others encrypt/password protect their feeds; and some just give it all away. But all of them are copying and syndicating, as that is what RSS does. To use your NYTimes point, they actually encourage users to take their RSS feed and put it on their site (here's the page where they help people do that). Of course, they only issue a partial RSS feed with a link back to the rest of the story, as this is in accordance with their publishing strategy.

Thus, if you don't want your content to be syndicated in full, (and many people don't, like the NY Times) then why issue an RSS feed with your full post?

The attribution issue you are absolutely correct on, a link should have been included and was not. This was a technical error -- you can see the other content has links pointing back. I do apologize for this error, there's no excuse for that one, although I did rectify as soon as I became aware of it.

While quoting or making reference to material is appropriate under the concept of “fair use”, this is not what was on your site. Your site was publishing my blog entries in their entirety and attributing them to a user called “ErgonomicGuitar”. Even my first post, which includes a dedication to my wife, is copied verbatim. The attribution of work to someone other than its owner is commonly known as plagiarism – a concept familiar to the average high school student. Anyone perusing the actoguitar site would think that a user named ErgonomicGuitar was posting original content that is, in fact, my work.

This goes back to the attribution error, which I agree was my mistake, I am happy to accept full responsibility for the error. Fair use is also given extended rights to educational endeavors, which ActoGuitar openly aspires to being.

Further, my site is labeled with the Creative Commons banner which indicates that the work is published with certain restrictions for those who wish to make use of it. The license I use clearly indicates my content may not be used for any commercial purpose.

This is, in a way, a flaw with Creative Commons and copyright legislation on the web in general. You issue an RSS feed; I assume you would be okay with people grabbing your feed and reading it in a feed reader, like one provided by Google, Yahoo, or Ask. Are they not commercial entities? Are they not profiting by putting their logo above your content in people's RSS readers, and by understanding the reading habits of their users (so as to faciliate targeted ad delivery)? I understand your point, I'm simply arguing that there is a double standard of sorts, or, at the very least, a lack of a clear definition as to what exactly is meant.

Seems like our differences stem from different views surrounding copyright and what is "fair." Tomorrow's generation, a generation of kids raised on file-sharing, will probably see things a bit differently. In the focus groups that I've encountered, they already do -- most of them view anything on the web as stuff that is meant to be shared and remixed. I'm just trying to move the rest of us old folks along -- but, of course, those who don't want to join the ride are, of course, free to stay off.

But man, what a ride it's going to be!

[crafty]

Fair use is also given extended rights to educational endeavors, which ActoGuitar openly aspires to being.

ActoGuitar is a commercial venture for profit--quite the opposite of an educational institution. Also, anyone who has used resources for educational purposes knows that proper citation and compensation are still often due to be paid the source of the information.

Personally, if I were Rob's attorney, I would recommend that he bring an action against you for full disgorgement of all profits made during the period in which his content was illegally being used by your site to generate money for the venture. 50% is pathetic when you did nothing to formulate the content and then attributed it to yourself. The difference between the Google feed generators and your site is the fact that when Google posts an RSS feed, they provide a link and credit back to the author. You didn't bother to do any of this. An RSS feed is not a license to circumvent copyright law, and is also a potential violation of the DMCA if misused.

Personally, I think the way kids are being raised these days to have little respect for intellectual property is dangerous and will lead to massive consequences for the creative world. Setting an example that theft of another person's work is socially acceptable is not something that I'd want my children to learn.

Edited August 19, 2006 by crafty

[psw]

But man, what a ride it's going to be!

Yeah a free ride...till you disappear up your own rear orafice!

Seems like our differences stem from different views surrounding copyright and what is "fair."

Tomorrow's generation, a generation of kids raised on file-sharing, will probably see things a bit differently. In the focus groups that I've encountered, they already do -- most of them view anything on the web as stuff that is meant to be shared and remixed. I'm just trying to move the rest of us old folks along -- but, of course, those who don't want to join the ride are, of course, free to stay off.

Really...or is it that "tomorrows generation" (is that the one not born yet that you have focused grouped?) is the same one that are so vacuumous that they cant come up with their own content and instead equate skill and talent with being able to parody, parody (like eminem's real slim shady perhaps) on youtube and call that talent. (more on this subject further along)

I find it very hard to believe that you have any genuine members when you appear to have gained all your content from pre-existing sources. At one point the entire Project Guitar Database was being burnt onto DVD and sold on ebay..."fair?" or theft? Theft my friend...I contribute here to a community of genuine (not virtual) people and I don't regard them as advertising fodder. Even file sharing is just that (although illegal), a community of people willing to share their content and computer space (and risking opening up their systems to abuse in the process) to share...not to profit!

Look...you are an interent marketer...that means you wish to draw revenue through advertising attached to a site with active membership and real content. There is nothing on that site that appears to be original content and not available elsewhere and the content providers...the members listed...also appear to be bogus...like "ergonomicguitar"...clearly not a contributer but simply another name for yourself. This content was attributed to you effectively in the full knowledge that you did not contribute anything to it (not even editing...infact, I suspect that you didn't even read it... If you had you would have seen the links and titles linking back to this site where some of the material was originally posted and could easily have contacted the member in question before you attempted to scrape his content).

I tell you what...you give me the incentive and I will write for you some original material, no problem...but as the host of one of the longest running threads on this site with over 50,000 visits to that thread alone...I had better not find it or anything else I may produce being attributed to you, some hoax name that is in fact you, or anyone like you.

In the media, content is king. The internet is no different. If today's or tomorrows generation want content, either contribute it themselves (as millions of bloggers do all the time of their own accord) or go to where it is freely available (such as here or any of the countless blogs and personal and commercial web sites).

Clearly, your focus groups (whoever they are) are jaundiced and I hope/suspect are non-indicative. The end result will be that as the media feeds upon itself, the content will dry up.

Now...if you were running a referral service pointing people to relavant blogs and sites without reprinting them and promoting them as part of your bogus community (think something like podcast alley for the podcasting world) of virtual members and contributors, that would be a different issue. You would be providing a service to draw together content...(of course that is why we have google and they are so profitable, hmmm)...but that is not what you have done in this case and in other threads that I observed over there. What you are doing is theft and disengenuous...this is not an enterprise to share, editorialise or facilitate anything...it is just a collection of lifted content (much of it extremely light weight) for the purpose of profit.

What would happen if a genuine person signed up and asked member "ergonomicguitar" a question about his project, what if your site were mistaken for a genuine forum...who would answer? You? That's the difference isn't it, a forum is an interactive community, and that is what the "new generation" really find online, communities, or maybe just individuals with some esoteric shared interest (or file, or whatever)...but that is not what you have at all.

As for profit sharing...50% of what? How could a contributor (willing or otherwise) know what your profit is to work out 50% of it...and how much of the total site is it....50% divided by the 2000 contributors, mostly being you? Where is the accountability.

Take a good hard look at what is really happening, take a look back at era's like sixties where new directions developed (for which the internet has some direct parallels). You are right, there are some dramatic developments and opportunities arising, especially for content producers, happening. The power and profits are being diverted from the distributors (publishers, etc) directly to the makers of content...and the content is getting more and more diverse and interesting as a result.

You appear to have a warped view of the internet and "forum" culture and the new media and what drives it. It is exactly this kind of "business" model that has fueled the end of traditional media and is spawning new exciting original and personal content. While TV wallows in the throws of a reality TV death, the internet is producing new forms of interactive media that is coming unfiltered by commercial concerns and finding it's own niche...often, to the maker's surprise, a profitable one.

Let's take an example. You will no doubt be aware of the short vids "ask a ninja". These guys put this together for about $25 an eposode in a little flat. The pair have a background in short film production and improvisonary theatre as well as a fair bit of tech savvy. I believe they are getting enormous downloads and the "idea" has generated perhaps $80,000 per week for them. In addition, they plan to market DVD's directly that will net them several million alone. (this is possible because they can produce and distribute a product and share the entire revenue between two people...they don't need hollywood audience numbers to make hollywood profits in this new medium).

But, wait...let the creative spirit flow...they are phasing this out because they are not simply one trick pony's...now they are doing a similar concept "faith is emo" taking the same blueprint to a different audience...and there are more ideas forthcoming in other directions. Now people have "ripped off" parody's (ask a pirate, etc) but it is their creative abilities and their honest connection with their audience (which fuels the content) that win out in the end. These parodies only serve to play homage to their ideas and execution of them and fuels the popularity (and the revenue and potential as a result).

This is an example of people coming up with an idea and making it for the love of doing it (not for the profit as a goal) and finding success as a result...because they are the creators of the content. They wanted to make movies, they wanted to go to hoolywood, now they will...because they have been able to show they have the skill, talent and content and a better understanding of the market forces driving the new medias...community involvement. Look into it.

It is talentless opportunitists like you that can only produce parodies of the real thing like a forum like Project Guitar for instance...a genuine community with genuine content.

BTW...As for the eminem parody of his parody of britany spears posted by you at youtube and on your forum as "original content" by kid mercury...close, but no cigar. Eminem's was a timely rap about his personal feelings about being nominated for a grammy along with people like brittany spears. It was essentially a throwaway, acidic attack upon the whole thing and the MTV culture that created it (and cleverly the slim shady persona as well). So, making it as a romantic ballard may seem clever superficially, but undermines the intent and the message. It is also several years too late to be relavant. Cute, but ultimately of no substance or worth. Eminem's contribution is not just that he can come up with such ludicrous lines, he does it in a timely fashion and mocks himself in the process. (Dig a little deeper and find out who/what slim shady is...meanwhile)

As I say cute. Now, the guys who remixed John Lennon's Imagine "sung" by George W Bush by painstakingly going through speaches and cutting and pasting them in time has merit. But, too late, it has been done now, and we don't need another.

Just to show I can come up with ideas...here's one of worth. Get a female singer (perhaps a torch song jazz arrangement) to redo John Lennon's Jealous Guy (subtley changing the gender of the word's to imply "he's just a jealous guy"), changeing the words as required and you have a hard hitting first account of domestic violence towards women (and an insite of the victim allowing it to continue by justifying excuses). Simple, self-reflective, and so effective...now you try doing something of merit and worth instead of trying to sponge off the talents of others. (again, this idea mine and taken, too late)!

You know, you know a few chords and your voice is ok...put it to some good use, don't waste it following this kind of dead end. Join the ride, get some content of your own and provide...that's were it is at my friend, that is the new media...it is you that will be left behind if you don't re-evaluate the reality of what is happening and the opportunities for people like yourself. Don't waste the emerging opportunities on these get rich quick scams...there are better riches to be made for people with talent, ideas and the ability to put it out there effectively. You have the skill set, just get the ideas together...there is no need to "rip off others" to share in it...

Oh, and since it is project guitar...why not try building a guitar and contributing some content! pete (quite possibly copywritten, certainly my own work and content)

[Drak]

Crafty and Pete have said it -far- more eloquently than I could, and I thank them for their thoughts which I wholeheartedly agree with, so I'll keep it simple:

You're a jackass.

[GuitarGuy]

I always enjoy reading your posts pete. Your rants are like poetry!

Drak....couldnt have said it better myself.

[kidmercury]

sorry for post #17, that was an accident.

I find it very hard to believe that you have any genuine members when you appear to have gained all your content from pre-existing sources.

Not true, much of the site contains original content was created primarily by myself (lessons 1 - 24 on my site).

The end result will be that as the media feeds upon itself, the content will dry up.

No, not really. What's happening is that media is switching from being a "push" industry (i.e. you push your product out there) to being a "pull" industry (it's all about who pulls your content). Profit, for those who desire it, comes from embedding ads in your content, or using your content to promote something else. In the case of the guitar industry, what's inevitably going to happen is that guitar industries will release lots of stuff for free and will use this to sell guitars. Likewise, musicians will release their stuff for free to sell concert tickets. Keith Richards even recently said that the Stones don't go on tour to sell albums; they sell albums to go on tour.

The big mistake we all agree I made, which I accept full responsibility for and have apologized for and immediately corrected when notified of it, was not giving attribution via a link. This was an honest mistake which I corrected immediately upon becoming aware of it. No excuse, and I'm very willing to accept criticism for it, but to think of it as a conscious act of "evil" is not really accurate, in my opinion.

So, making it as a romantic ballard may seem clever superficially, but undermines the intent and the message.

I didn't really see it as a romantic ballad -- more of a joke, really. Kind of like the song itself.

Join the ride, get some content of your own and provide

I've written 2 books (one fiction, one non-fiction), 2 screenplays, 24 lessons on ActoGuitar, a blog, and two albums worth of original music. As soon as I get around to it (I had it up on a site before but I want it to look better before putting it up again), almost all of it will be online and free for consumption and syndication. It might be talentless, in your opinion, although to suggest that I'm not involved in the creation of original content is quite erroneous.

Every major Internet company -- Google, Yahoo, YouTube, MSN, etc -- all of them break traditional copyright laws. These are also the same companies that empower many other individuals and small businesses and allow them to succeed online. The paradox can be resolved by considering alternatives to our current copyright legislation, which is both a far cry from what copyright was originally intended to do, and does not really create the right incentive structure for the Internet.

If anyone is interested, I'll be posting a short mini series on copyright and Internet economics on my business blog within a couple of days.

To be certain, I'm not interested in taking content from anyone who doesn't want it to be taken. I genuinely am looking for a win/win situation, as I think that is the best way for everyone to succeed. In the future, I'll leave a comment on someone's blog, as was suggested by Robert. (I didn't do it at the time because I thought the offer would be awkward to post and explain via comment on a blog).

Alternatively, for those interested in allowing ActoGuitar to help you, just let me know.

[spazzyone]

Have we no F@#KING morals anymore. its no wonder i wished i grew up in the

"great depression" when people worked their ass off for what they had

unlike today's "i can get it off the net for free attitude" pure scumbag's

this great world i live in is slowly dying because of "GREED"

i bet this group of losers belive because they joined this site

they are intitled to its content "Poppycock" you are no better than a drug dealer

and i also congradulate Pete and Drak for what i feel i very precise

opinions on this matter

P.S i appologise to fellow "Members" for my spat

[psw]

I didn't really see it as a romantic ballad -- more of a joke, really. Kind of like the song itself.

Hence the candles, etc...only kidding...I realize that...that recontextualizing the song in this way was supposed to be a joke...it just wasn't as funny as when it was first told by slim'...timing is everything in humour...it came across as kind of cute but of no real substance like so much ego driven content...

I raised it only as a parrallel to your other endeavours...like actoguitar.

It is talentless opportunitists like you that can only produce parodies of the real thing like a forum like Project Guitar for instance...a genuine community with genuine content.

It is a poor joke of a forum compared to a real community generated site like Project Guitar for instance. YouTube has the highest use of bandwidth on the net, for instance, but didn't get so popular simply by posting their own vids, they got there by providing a service that allows communities to thrive and post content. Google, similarly, provide an innovative indexing service...not the content, but a way to link to the overwhelming content on all the web.

Your "forum" simply disrupts the true nature of the web by getting in the way of people getting from google to Robert's blog...between the user and the content that they are seeking...for your own profit. Afterall, if Rob wanted to make revenue from his blog, if that was his reason for posting it, he would have subscribed to google ads himself and garnered all of the profits due to him. Now his generously provided free information, and the ability to find it, is being indexed through a profiteering junk site that doesn't even cite the true author (ergonomicguitar is you, right) let alone ask permission.

Oh, well...

QUOTE

psw... "I find it very hard to believe that you have any genuine members when you appear to have gained all your content from pre-existing sources."

km ... Not true, much of the site contains original content was created primarily by myself (lessons 1 - 24 on my site).

"created primarily by myself"... Exactly my point...it is not an active forum of diverse contributors...it is you simply plagerisisng and apeing real sites like this one.

The big mistake we all agree I made, which I accept full responsibility for and have apologized for and immediately corrected when notified of it, was not giving attribution via a link. This was an honest mistake which I corrected immediately upon becoming aware of it. No excuse, and I'm very willing to accept criticism for it, but to think of it as a conscious act of "evil" is not really accurate, in my opinion.

NO...the big mistake was "stealing content" (see this link for definitions), assigning it to yourself under the psuedonym ergonomicguitar and promoting a forum of content with thousands of "fake" members as an active community. It appears to be simply you and whatever content you can scrape from sites like this. Why not just cut and paste the entire PG database into your site? Think of the content you could gather. But it still wouldn't produce an active diverse community of contributors, it would still just be you, and that is not what advertisers want. They don't just want you clicking on ads to get hits to pay you through google for their own profit, they want real people being exposed to their products...come on!

psw ... You have the skill set, just get the ideas together...there is no need to "rip off others" to share in it...

km ... I've written 2 books (one fiction, one non-fiction), 2 screenplays, 24 lessons on ActoGuitar, a blog, and two albums worth of original music. As soon as I get around to it (I had it up on a site before but I want it to look better before putting it up again), almost all of it will be online and free for consumption and syndication. It might be talentless, in your opinion, although to suggest that I'm not involved in the creation of original content is quite erroneous.

Sorry about the talentless crack...I really mean't that your talent was overinflated and misdirected...

hence..."You know, you know a few chords and your voice is ok...put it to some good use, don't waste it following this kind of dead end. Join the ride, get some content of your own and provide...that's were it is at my friend, that is the new media...it is you that will be left behind if you don't re-evaluate the reality of what is happening and the opportunities for people like yourself. Don't waste the emerging opportunities on these get rich quick scams...there are better riches to be made for people with talent, ideas and the ability to put it out there effectively."

What I am saying is that you do have a basis for your own personal development and contribution to the community of the web, but that you are doing a diservice to yourself and those you wish to serve by the manner and attitude that you are approaching it.

The real winners are the content producers in the new media, as the media allows for the production and distribution to be more in the hands of the creators and undermines traditional models of the economics of scale. Small esoteric interest groups (like custom guitar building, etc) can be successful because they have the means to access like minded customers now, on a global scale.

It is not about blanding out the landscape, but the details within it. Advertisers are just adapting now to the new paradigm with the aid of services like google to target their products to these specific niche groups. This is not mass media anymore. It is not "network" driven (like the branded "actoguitar" model) but user and content producer driven. You have provided very little original content (how to tune the guitar, etc) and "scraped the rest together from other sites...the result is a comunity of one it seems, you...not what you yourself advertise and the the idea of trying to pass the "forum" off as anything other than a cheap and greedy money making scheme is hardly genuine.

I think you do underestimate people too much, in paticular the internet users...but if in fact you have focus groups (a small hand picked cross section of potential users), you should be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. Why not just reply to the spam and buy yourself a degree and take up brain surgery, it would be just as genuine and pay a lot more... pete

[Robert Irizarry]

Your "forum" simply disrupts the true nature of the web by getting in the way of people getting from google to Robert's blog...between the user and the content that they are seeking...for your own profit. Afterall, if Rob wanted to make revenue from his blog, if that was his reason for posting it, he would have subscribed to google ads himself and garnered all of the profits due to him. Now his generously provided free information, and the ability to find it, is being indexed through a profiteering junk site that doesn't even cite the true author (ergonomicguitar is you, right) let alone ask permission.

NO...the big mistake was "stealing content" (see this link for definitions), assigning it to yourself under the psuedonym ergonomicguitar

Thanks to you as well as everyone else for your support in this matter. You hit two of the big issues right on the head above. First, Simit Patel profited (granted a very small amount in the scheme of things) not by helping to drive traffic to my site but by DENYING my site of traffic and directing users to his site at my expense. Second, while Simit Patel has admitted to an "attribution error" he has never addressed the creation of a fictitious forum participant called "ergonomicguitar" used to masquerade as the source of my content.

As a result, I've decided to make some changes to my blog in order to better protect my content. For those of you who might be interested, I have a brief post on my blog called "Upcoming Changes at Building The Ergonomic Guitar". You can go directly to the post here.

Thanks again to everyone and hopefully we can get back to focusing on building stuff...

[guitarchump]

I have this very strong urge to hack his site, but I know i'm better then that. Hopefully this guy has what is coming for him. The funny thing is if someone hacked his site he really couldn't do much about it, seeing as bringing this legal matter to the stage would inadvertently involve his sites legal infractions. People like him have no respect for personal property.

Through Draks words of infinite wisdom I will repeat

You're a jackass. icon_wavey.gif

-Jeff

[psw]

Thanks again to everyone and hopefully we can get back to focusing on building stuff...

Quite right, but it is the mark of an authentic site like project guitar with a diverse community that allows such discussion. The fact that dissesnt and opinion plus learning and reflection are permitted is the hallmark of a vital and active community.

The times are a'changing and there are exciting opportunities arising in new media and communication. There are changes in definitions and expectations and some edges are being blurred. I honestly don't see that, although plagarism is rife and the internet provides a perfect tool to accomplish it, that the majority of people see this as the exciting and new attraction. Actoguitar actually acknowledges it, it is community. The ability for people joining together without the barriers of distance, age or social strata that have divided people before, over common concerns or interests.

I read a bit more about the money making aspect of the site and how one can share in it. It actually asks would be members to scour the web for information and repost it for their share in the profit! Why, when given time to grow a site like PG can generate so much content for which we can all profit through eachothers contributions.

Anyway...thanks to all for allowing this rant, eventually this site will die out or be put down I am sure of it while sites like PG will continue to grow and remain vital...viva PG and thanks Rob for bringing it to our attention... pete

hahaha...i wonder if I type actoguitar enough I could attract google hits to this thread... actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, actoguitar, sucks!!!!!!

[Mattia]

Re: the RSS thing: it's meant to facilitate reading of a blog for people who use Blog accretion tools (Bloglines, RSS readers, etc.), and in NO WAY implies that copying the content onto a seperate site is appropriate, doubly so if we're talking for-profit ventures. It's merely another way of publishing the same content, controlled by content creator. The same rules apply to an RSS feed as to printed material or a website.