[scotty79]

They basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one (three?) person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom.

The title made me think that he released a paperback that competes with the original.

> If you agree with copyright at all

The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution (which the rest of copyright makes often hard for purely financial reasons). So whoever made this silly little thing gets a pass from me.

[marshray]

> He basically liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo for their most likely one person "digital agency" that probably has 3 clients including mom.

What is your basis for this belief?

Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book?

> The only part of copyright I agree with is right to inalienable attribution [...] So whoever made this silly little thing gets a pass from me.

Did you read the part about the fake site appearing higher in search results for the author's own name?

[scotty79]

> What is your basis for this belief?

My experience inflicted stupidity.

> Did you read the part about the obviously intentionally-added affiliate links to the original book?

I find it nice that they linked to the original book. For every x earned let the original author earn many times more. It's probably a better deal than the author got from their legal publisher.

> Did you read the part about the fake site appearing higher in search results for the author's own name?

And who's fault is that? Google? Or this little slop maker that I'm (again stupidly) assuming is not a SEO hacker.

[marshray]

> My experience inflicted stupidity.

We've all been there.

> I find it nice that they linked to the original book. For every x earned let the original author earn many times more. > It's probably a better deal than the author got from their legal publisher.

These two statements sound contradictory to me.

> And who's fault is that? Google? Or this little slop maker that I'm (again stupidly) assuming is not a SEO hacker.

Why not both? I think there's plenty of blame to go around.

Also, the publisher who presumably convinced the author that it would be a good idea to assign them exclusive rights. The affiliate link the blog post refers to as "the author's own" actually belongs to the publisher.

[scotty79]

> These two statements sound contradictory to me.

How so?

[marshray]

Well, it turned out the affiliate code linked as "the author's" actually belongs to the publisher anyway.

[scotty79]

Let's say author gets 40% of each sale and the publisher gets 60%. If a random dude brings a client through 'illegal' affiliate link that pays 2% of the item price. Then yes, he earns 2% without being blessed by the author. But the author earns 20x as much on that sale. While he earns only 2/3 of what publisher does on this sale. So this random dude with his dirty tactics brings the author many times better deal than publisher did.

All numbers made up. I don't have any idea what they might actually be. I'm just presenting my logic with an example, in service of hopefully better understanding.

[12_throw_away]

> liked the idea of the book and used the bulk of its text as lorem ipsum in a demo

I'm sorry, what? What exactly do you think is happening here?

[scotty79]

You tell me:

https://webflow.com/@qontour?msockid=0946eab0f6bf6a55192dfcc...

If that doesn't look like a marooned freelancer down on their luck I don't what does.

I mean, what's your read on this?

Is this a person who secretly hates the book and the author and re-published its contents because he knows that people who have the content will never, ever purchase a book, no matter how much they like it? And he provides the links to buy the book only for plausible deniability and makes them affiliates for even more plausible deniability fully knowing nobody will ever now buy this book?

Or is he a grifter trying to earn heaps of money with affiliate links to one obscure book providing it with better visibility through SEO tricks Google is powerless against even though they are in this business for nearly three decades? And he also published the full text of the book because of ... how does this helps him earn more money exactly? I ran out of ideas.

And the most important question. Is this person a worthy target of the internet wrath?

[marshray]

We're discussing a blog post about a blatantly plagiarized website, and the ethical environment and professional choices that led to its creation and continued existence. We get to do that.

This isn't Reddit and we aren't "the internet". We aren't brigading and organizing harassment or whatever here.

That is why the particulars of the web designer's personal life and state of mind are mostly uninteresting.

[scotty79]

> We get to do that.

We get to discuss anything that doesn't get moderated.

> This isn't Reddit and we aren't "the internet".

It's a reddit for techno snobs and we are the internet as much as any other part of the internet.

> That is why the particulars of the web designer's personal life and state of mind are mostly uninteresting.

Depends on the perspective. IP law and it's fake aspirations for a morality that's voluntarily mob supported by a small but very vocal group of people is what's interesting for me. And who's being ground by it also kind of matters more than what imagined offences agains the letter of the "law" they commited to trigger that.