Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 Internet speed test! ×

Comment In my opinion... (Score 1) 106

Ziff Davis has a legal department that routinely checks certain websites for scans from their magazine. The reasoning is that once an individual has viewed the scan of a featured article, they have lost any need/interest in purchasing the magazine for that article. The scans therefore ruin the potential marketability of the magazine and in turn incur an estimated number of losses in proportion to the number of people that have viewed the image. Ironically, I find this analogous to the position that DoAC is placed in as a result of 1UP's plagiarism. There are many possible ways that the information provided on the DoAC website could have been marketed prior to being plagiarized down to their formatting. This material could have been sold and published as a strategy guide, paid memberships could have been instituted, among many other possibilities. The fact that this information was being provided for free by virtuaPAI and other posters at the time of the plagiarism is irrelevant, as scenarios are endless in how they could have profited from it at some point in the future. 1UP's publishing of the plagiarized content has infringed upon DoAC's inalienable right to individual capital by profiting from DoAC's written work and forever diminished the marketability of that work. That makes what they did legally actionable in addition to being morally and ethically corrupt. The plagiarized work includes more than "listed facts." What was plagiarized in my opinion included DoAC's own organization of these facts, as well as their detailed explanation of gameplay features and strategies. That written material is the property of its DoAC contributors (namely virtuaPAI), of which 1UP neither cited nor compensated. Plagiarizing the presentation and explanation of these facts and ideas -- namely gameplay and strategy descriptions -- is disconcerting enough to raise legal questions. Of course, I highly doubt that virtuaPAI is going to sue 1UP and take on the Ziff Davis legal team. =P I'm just pointing out that this could be actionable for a number of reasons and that 1UP should be careful in how they use fansites in the future. There was nothing legal about using DoAC and not citing it as a source of their material.

Slashdot Top Deals

Executive ability is deciding quickly and getting somebody else to do the work. -- John G. Pollard