4 ms·

I agree, you definitely make a good point and I make no defense for how I scraped content in the past. Perhaps that is the reason why I took such disgust to his

I agree, you definitely make a good point and I make no defense for how I scraped content in the past. Perhaps that is the reason why I took such disgust to his behavior, because I learnt to move on from what I was doing. But, just to stress one point in case it wasn't obvious from the scraping comment I made, I would never republish the scraped content. (I went out of my way to make this point in my previous comment because in spite of my somewhat "cloudy"/blackhat past, I would never rip off other peoples content. The cloest I would come would be from spinning new content using markov chains, however, when you have an ngram ranging between 3-7 and spread accross thousands of articles, there is surely no copyright infringement through republication of your fabricated content. Anyway, I agree with what you said about my attitude being interesting.. but peoples attitudes change and the markov chain example was how I used to scrape somewhere near 4-8 years ago. (Nice comment by the way, if there is anything I would hate to be, is a hypocrite, so a little self reflection is welcome on this subject!)

jasonlotito 14y ago
I figured you saw a lot of what you did in the past, and so for you, this hit a lot closer to home then you'd want to admit. > The cloest I would come would be from spinning new content using markov chains, however, when you have an ngram ranging between 3-7 and spread accross thousands of articles, there is surely no copyright infringement through republication of your fabricated content. I think you are lying to yourself. And, honestly, I think deep-down you know it. You seem like a reasonable guy. TNW didn't repeat word for word the article that blew up either. I'm not here to debate this. I think what you did could definitely be argued as copyright infringement. Just because you change a certain number of words doesn't mean you get a free pass. That's not an issue, however. You realize you made a mistake, and you've moved on. And that, I think, is important. Should we forever shun TNW for mistakes in the past? Should we shun you? > (Nice comment by the way, if there is anything I would hate to be, is a hypocrite, so a little self reflection is welcome on this subject!) I'm glad you took it the right way. I was a bit apprehensive about bringing it up. I wanted to make a point, and discuss this. So thank you. We all have a past. Should it haunt us forever?

jasonlotito 14y ago

I figured you saw a lot of what you did in the past, and so for you, this hit a lot closer to home then you'd want to admit. > The cloest I would come would be from spinning new content using markov chains, however, when you have an ngram ranging between 3-7 and spread accross thousands of articles, there is surely no copyright infringement through republication of your fabricated content. I think you are lying to yourself. And, honestly, I think deep-down you know it. You seem like a reasonable guy. TNW didn't repeat word for word the article that blew up either. I'm not here to debate this. I think what you did could definitely be argued as copyright infringement. Just because you change a certain number of words doesn't mean you get a free pass. That's not an issue, however. You realize you made a mistake, and you've moved on. And that, I think, is important. Should we forever shun TNW for mistakes in the past? Should we shun you? > (Nice comment by the way, if there is anything I would hate to be, is a hypocrite, so a little self reflection is welcome on this subject!) I'm glad you took it the right way. I was a bit apprehensive about bringing it up. I wanted to make a point, and discuss this. So thank you. We all have a past. Should it haunt us forever?