Talk:Blog scraping

it is the only thing that gives you the legal right to go after the offending party. Um, how can that be true? At least in the U.S., I thought that all content was automatically copyrighted, even WITHOUT inclusion of a copyright notice. See the "misconceptions" section in the Fair Use wiki article for more details. --Injoy 06:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Three little things:

1. What exactly is the "danger" of blog scraping? The article says absolutely nothing about what malevolent purpose lies behind the "evil blog scrapers". The closest guess I can think of is that it is used by spammers to fuel dummy content, but I can't think of any other unpleasant activity that could be carried out using a blog scraper.
2. That line about copyrighted material being unarchivable is total, utter B.S. in the worst way. Guess what happens when you view copyrighted material on your computer? IT GETS A PERFECT DUPLICATE OVER THE NETWORK STORED IN SYSTEM RAM, HDD CACHE AND TONS OF OTHER PLACES ALL OVER YOUR COMPUTER. There is absolutely no legal distinction whatsoever between viewing something on a computer and burning it onto a billion discs that you deposit all over the world.
3. While I'm not aware of things being assumed copyrighted until proven innocent in any country, there ARE laws in most nations against plagiarism and false advertising that prevent somebody from claiming they created something they didn't. If they DO, however, note that it was originally created by whomever they can be reasonably assumed to have guessed created it, then they're free and clear. 207.177.231.9 13:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the wording of this article, it was very poorly written, and have changed "Dangers" to "Issues". The whole article is very dry and very hard for the average person to understand. Discuss, revert or edit. 123.243.236.11 06:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)