There Are 14 Responses So Far. »

1. 

   Comment by Benjamin Goodiwn on 22 February 2006:

   This is ridiculous. If I republished your FEED which you provide would you have any problems? This was mearly a way for some of our clients to view the struction and fuction of a blog. I want to make it clear that the iframed content will be removed and you can relax. I’m sure the 15 ppl that read this are thrilled something interesting happened for you to write about.

   Your blog will be removed shortly. So much for syndicated content. Best of luck to you and thanks so much for alarming our clients with your outrageous claims. Your site is only iframed into 3 out of about 25 template based sites looking identical to the ones you took screen shots of. To think we’re reselling this is crazy, it’s mearly an example of how a blog works.

   I am confused about what your motivation truley is. More people may have read your blog and google doesn’t crewl IFRAMEs so forget about duplicate content. Clearly you were hurting for subject matter.

   Benjamin Goodwin
2. 

   Comment by Benjamin Goodiwn on 22 February 2006:

   PS I am the one who designed these pages and can be contacted at 941-544-0181
3. 

   Comment by Benjamin Goodiwn on 22 February 2006:

   You sound like a paranoid fool with no premise of what blogging is about. You think your content was used to profit? What exactly do you think the dollar figure would be on your opinions and regurgitations of other news stories?

   I think this comment you added to your post illustrates how ridiculous this is:

   “I will have to determine if others are doing so by putting a trap onto the site?”

   Hummm…. Here’s a suggestion, find a legal basis for your agruements – and if it was simply unethical (in your opinion) then explain further.

   I’ve stated we never resold this blog as a feature or service and it was really selected at random (googled real estate blog).

   What benifit would our agents get from allowing people to read your blog. Since it is geared towards real estate insiders and not their potential clients no one would pay us to display your content.

   If anything your readship expanded and you gained visibility. If someone visiting one of those sites clicked on an ad who would be profiting then?
   You.

   So perhaps you can let this go. If you can’t why not contact me directly and settle this.

   Transit Media

   Benjamin Goodwin
4. 

   Comment by Jim Kimmons on 23 February 2006:

   Very interesting. All the protestations aside, using someone else’s site/blog content without permission, whether framed or in some other way, isn’t right and possibly could be illegal and subject to legal action.

   I just found a service that actually files your site content with the government and you get a real copyright certificate. It is c-site and is marketed through numerous resellers. In researching, I found the best priced source at only around $55. Sorry, but not sure how a link will show up in these comments so you can get the link at my post today at http://www.reatlytechblog.com

   I’m also adding your blog to my blog roll.

   Jim Kimmons
   http://www.technologyforrealestate.com

5. Comment by The RE Phantom on 23 February 2006:

   “syndicated content”

   Is that what theft is called these days?

   Mighty defensive are we. What would possess anyone whether it be an example or not to do this. You went with it live on the internet.

   What part about the term “just plain wrong” do you not quite get. You would actually defend your actions. This is the world we live in today. Someone does something wrong, gets called out on it and defends it by saying that someone else is benefiting by their wrong doing.

   Comically indeed. You may want to rethink that business plan.
6. 

   Comment by Benjamin Goodwin on 24 February 2006:

   Come on now man, grow up, google syndicated content at least before you try to get smart.

   Phantom is the publisher of this blog, he chose to get clever, and has been at it what? 6-8 monthes now? Comendable but still read up on what blogs are actually about on wiki or google and definatly look at this piece from wiki on Web syndication.

   I think its understandable, you’re a realtor not a web guru. Your blog gets read by so few people you picked up (from your site stats I assume) that your content was on our page within a few days. I looked through and this is the only subject that has ever been commented on really and in truth theres only three people posting here.

   Me, you (blog publisher, I’ve yet to learn his name) and this guy Jack. Check out his website, http://www.technologyforrealestate.com, enough said.

   He’s a webmaster but also seems to be lost on what blogging is about.
   “I just found a service that actually files your site content with the government and you get a real copyright certificate”
   -posted by Jack Kimmons

   Well this would be great for a static site but blogs are dynamic and get republished weekly, daily and even multiple times daily. The fact you suggest this type of service shows that Mr. Kimmons isn’t real solid on why weblogs started and their purpose.

   So RE PHANTOM/AUTHOR You can point the finger at me and claim I’m unethical, you can harrass our clients with your accusations and all that but in the end I think you’re the one who looks like an amatuer. Get a little knowledge, read up, and then try to take shots.

   Like I said you got issues and you feel like this isn’t a dead horse, call me, 941-544-0181. My name is Benjamin Goodwin and I wouldn’t be so defensive if you didn’t keep trying to take shots at me.
7. 

   Comment by Tom on 24 February 2006:

   Well Ben,

   I guess I am at fault. I was the one who put my web site on your customers site.

   I guess I am at fault. I was remiss in telling the customer that this was example of what could happen, not a sold product.

   I guess I am at fault. I communicated with the customer to tell them they were doing something wrong, instead of waiting for you to do so.

   Ben, come off your sanctimonious BS, you messed up and got caught. I contacted the people whose site YOUR COMPANY designed and whose name and telephone number was at the top. Not me.

   Ben, you put this in your customers lap, not me.

   Ben, I am not going to contact you directly because you are the one who is so aggresive about this that your behavior is unnerving. I have enough aggrevation in my life.

   Ben, you have said so many things on this site so far, but the one thing you have not said is that you are sorry. Odds are you did not say this to the customers either.

   Let us recap:

   The customers or the real estate bloggers did not put our content up on their sites. I specifically did not target them in this post, they seem like good people.

   The customers were not told by you it was an example, I asked them and informed them that what was going on and they were embarrassed and annoyed. I do not blame them, they did not want to hear from me and to be honest it was not what I wanted to be doing.

   But Ben, you created this and are blaming everyone else.

   My content was taken down and I am thankful. I am sure your customers are thankful too. Doesn’t that say something?
8. 

   Comment by Benjamin Goodwin on 24 February 2006:

   Tom, I will address you by first name several times.

   Tom, I AM VERY SORRY FOR ALL OF THIS

   Tom, Are you happy I apoligized?

   Seriously Tom. nothing is your fault and I’m actaully not blaming anyone. I am trying to inform you I’m trying to educate you, did you read what syndicated content is, have you heard of wiki before?

   Tom, read up friend, my customers are annoyed you’re right, and thats why I’m wasting my personal time with these comments.

   TOM, sanctimonious? Whoa that’s a big one. I’m impressed you MUST be brilliant.

   I love how open I’m being Tom, giving my phone number and e-mail address yet you still want to discuss this in the open which is fine by me. I’ve been discussing your shenanigans on my own blog. Check it out, post some comments.

   You have enough aggrivation in your life already Tom? That’s aweful, I mean tragic, really Tom.

   Tom, I forget, did I say that I was quite sorry.

   Transit-media.com
9. 

   Comment by Elizabeth on 24 February 2006:

   Wow. Quite the drama. I would be horrified and furious if I found someone else using the content or design of my site without my permission. (And let me tell you, Ben, the fact that you can’t spell to save your life isn’t helping your argument. MERELY.)

   Interesting site.
10. 

    Comment by Benjamin Goodiwn on 25 February 2006:

    Okay my final word (on this blog).

    If you’re a realtor® then just leave the technical issues alone. I know you guys think you quite savvy, not the case, clearly.

    I’m trying very hard to use proper english and spelling. My other posts were hasty and feverishly (spell check it) typed. This is dramatic and quite exciting for me. I’m obviously the villian (check again) but thats fun enough, particularly here.

    If you could look past my spelling and read what I wrote, maybe you all (there are now 4 people who read your blog Tom

    Elizabeth, thanks for your input, another realtor in my fan club. No one would steal your content on your site. Maybe the design, but then again the design isn’t something you created it was most likely sold as a template and was created by Michael Heilemann so I’m sure Tom invited you into our fun little exchange here but lay off the grammer school teacher I’m looking for a technical arguement not some real estate agent trying to nit pick my spelling.

    You guys are all a joke and this has been quite fun. I say this is my last word on this site because it’s getting a little outta control. So I’m moving the fun over to my blog if anyone has the energy to put up with anymore of my sactamonious bullsh*t (such a zinger Tom) then feel free to post there. My friends and collegues (spelling) will definatly get a kick out of this.

    It’s been a thrilling week… I just don’t want it to end, but alas, I grow tired. So until tommorow my #1 fans.
11. 

    Comment by Benjamin Goodiwn on 26 February 2006:
12. 

    Comment by Mark on 2 April 2006:

    This is a really great blog and the discussion and comments are very interesting. I too would take exception to anyone using my content on any other site, without prior permission. I use copyscape.com to try and find offenders. I also use google alert to at least give me a ‘heads up’ when someone uses some of my content, have found many scrapers this way. I found this blog by reading about duplicate content at problogger, another unbelievably excellent blog.

    This is an unrelated question about your blog: I read somewhere that you could not have any other advertising along side of google ads. Then I noticed the chitika.net ad at the top right of this blog. I am not a google cop, I just need to know if it’s ok to put other 3rd party ads along side google ads, I thought it was a violation of google AdSense TOS

    Thanks again for a great blog and any comments you may have,
    Mark
13. 

    Comment by Ben on 22 April 2006:

    Mark I think you are correct about the adsense tos. I just signed up for it and they let you place multiple ads of different shapes and formats but I’m definatly looking into it since I would love to be a pain in your @ss… haHa
14. 

    Comment by Tom on 22 April 2006:

    Mark,

    As long as you turn off the contextual feed option on Chitika, it is fine. If you run it in contextual mode, then you are in violation of Adsense TOS.

    Tom

Post a Response

Name (required)

Mail (will not be published) (required)

Website

Or add a Video Comment

with

« Back to text comment