I was following links – no, really, I clicked on a link in a thread here and it was linked on that page, honest – and I found this female sexuality site. An article on female ejaculate quotes Cecil’s entire column What’s in female ejaculate? from October 25, 2002.
It seems to be a major legit site and they should know better. Somehow calling an eight-year-old column the “very latest” information makes it even worse.
She cites “Cecil” as the author at the end of the blog post and says some very complimentary things about him.
I’ve sent an alert out, thank you.
So what? Are you honestly of the opinion that you can commit copyright theft if only you praise what you steal?
Most people who steal like what’s being stolen. Do you think they start off by saying “Hey, everybody, I really, really hate this piece. I’m going to reprint here in its entirety.”?
It’s copyright infringement. Naming the original author doesn’t change the legal status by an iota. Legally it’s theft. Not some fake variation that isn’t really theft because it’s words. Theft. Stolen property. It’s wrong. It’s to be condemned and reported. And then taken down.
Jeez. Calm down. I was just pointing out that she gave it proper attribution and she isn’t making any money off of it.
The proper way to do it( as pointed out here by the mods), is to quote a small portion(fair use) and link to the full article unless you get permission to reprint the whole thing.
At least it wasn’t a recipe for apple pie!
At least she didn’t ‘improve’ it.
The Straight Dope isn’t printed under a Creative Commons licence, so that is not enough.
I get it. However there is a huge difference between claiming the work as your own and/or selling it for profit and not following proper copyright procedure. It’s a copyright violation but hardly theft.