Quote:
|
Originally Posted by AcaCandy Quite frankly, I find it incredible that if it's posted on the internet, and someone else copies and pastes it somewhere else on the internet, isn't that just getting their story that much more exposure?????
They should think of it as "FREE ADVERTISING"  |
To an extent that seems true. However, sites like Washingtonpost.com charge advertisers on their web site by the number of hits the site receives. If you can read their reporters articles without visiting the Post web site you impact on the Posts revenue. Obviously, there are other ways that copyright infringement can affect the bottom line but I'm just giving one example. Just as obvious, what the Post is looking for (I'm not picking on the Post, it just came to mind) are web sites that copy and past large numbers of articles over an extended period of time. The unscrupulous web site is doing this for the same purpose as the Post which is to charge advertisers more because of the number of hits. But, as you can see, the unscrupulous web site really makes a killing because it never had to pay the reporters who created the story in the first place.
It is one of the reason I believe that copyright infringement isn't occurring here but, again, Mike would be out of business attempting to prove it. His site so its his way or the highway....which is the way it should be. He has the exposure we don't.
I, however, would love to see AcaCandy exposed.
