3 ms·
>It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue. Perhaps you missed the qu
by otakucode 17y ago
>It looks like they gave him full credit for this. Unless he was selling access to this blog post, I'm not sure why this is an issue.
Perhaps you missed the quite important point that Ajaxian was using this post to drive traffic to their site effectively and selling advertisements based on its, and not their own, merits? They're not just linking to something and showing it to their users, they're getting his paid-for account to serve the content so that they can make advertising revenue off of his work. I think the ethical issue with such an action should be clear.
- byrneseyeview 17y agoThey promoted him. They showed the same content he did, plus a strong endorsement, minus some of the bandwidth costs. And he's mad that they might have earned a few dollars from their ads?
- jerf 17y ago"They showed the same content he did..." Yeah... his content. You're begging the question here, casually skipping over the question of whether they can just appropriate it by trying to draw some sort of stretched equality here. There's an enormous difference between him posting his content and them posting his content!
- Kejistan 17y agoHe is angry that they effectively hijacked his bandwidth to earn them revenue off of his work. And all without the courtesy of asking his permission. Twice.
- Pistos2 17y ago> minus some of the bandwidth costs It wasn't: Ajaxian.bw--; Cortes.bw.noop It was: Ajaxian.bw -= cost; Cortes.bw += cost