Another Instance of Plagiarism

This morning, quite a few of the people I follow on Twitter and my blogroll discovered that some of their blog posts had been reposted without permission on another site.  The person that had set up this blog has visited numerous respected bloggers' feeds, as well as Microsoft's TechNet content, and reposted it on his site.  This person didn't even bother to remove things inside the content that clearly indicated where it came from - making his transgression insanely easy to catch.  It seems that absolutely nothing on his site was created by himself, and it's simply an "aggregation" of other people's work.
The general consensus within five minutes of discovering this "rip-off artist" was to:

• Flood his site with comments calling him a thief.
• Send him "DMCA" style takedown nastygrams.
• Post information on your own site with his name on it, branding him a plagiarist, so his future employers' searches would find out.
• Getting lawyers on his case, to shut down his site permanently.

Stop, or I'll Shoot!
Whoa.  Scary sh*t.  Anything more than the first option up there probably has him filling his pants with bio-degradable material.  I know I would.
But I'd ask you all to take a step back for a minute here and get some perspective.  Take a deep breath.  I know I'm talking about sensitive stuff - this is material that a lot of people I respect very much have put a lot of effort into.
Examine the Evidence
First, by looking directly at the posts, it's obvious that this person is either completely incompetent at plagiarism, or has no concern for having the content thought of as something he made.  It's obvious because he hasn't removed glaring attributions inside the posts, or links to the original authors' other posts.  If making people think these posts were generated by him was the intent, he fails 99%.  In fact, he fails so badly at it that it raises the very real probability that there was no intent to do that.  (Sadly, I didn't take a screen picture showing examples of the obviousness of the scraping.)
Second, look at his bio page (which is probably taken down or changed by now - so here's a picture - I did have that page left open):
It seems quite clear to me that he's done exactly what he's said - he's scraped material that he finds very useful from other sites and reposted it here.  And he's very thankful for the existence of that information.
Inside the Criminal Mind
So, from a (hopefully) objective perspective, here's my analysis of the situation.

• This guy loves what he's read online elsewhere - it helped him.
• He wants other people to see it, and get that same help.
• He's very uneducated in copyright law.  (He has his own copyright notice in the site footer!)
• He is unaware of how it makes authors feel when their content is scraped and reposted without consultation.

Instead of unleashing ungodly fury on this kid for doing something he clearly should not be doing, I think he should be gently informed of the right way to go about satisfying what he wants to accomplish, lest he expose himself to sphincter-relaxing outcomes.  The "right way" is to attribute properly, with the permission of the original author.  That way, he gets what he wants - a collection of work he likes, and a way to share with the world his collection.  And the original authors get what they want - exposure.
The Victims' Reaction
Here's why I think that the "victims" went about this in completely the wrong way - and maybe I read too much TechDirt.
Ignorance Of the Law Is No Defense!
First and foremost, the people who had their work reposted are "educators" within the SQL community.  And yet their first reaction wasn't to educate this person, it was to draw and quarter them.  Shameful.  You're acting by assuming something that's done incorrectly by this guy has been intentionally crafted that way despite full knowledge of the correct way.  That's like seeing somebody's database with AutoShrink turned on and assuming they're doing it solely to piss off their users and SAN administrator.  You guys would never react that way in that case - so why do you in this case?
He's a Thief!
Secondly, going to the extreme by accusing the guy of "stealing".  This is a highly controversial and sensitive subject, and I'm definitely influenced by TechDirt on this one - but the logic is irrefutable.  You can't "steal" content, period.  There is nothing physical to "take away".  Just because someone else "has it" doesn't mean you still don't "have yours".  Mind you, I do look on this argument as splitting hairs - because it sure does feel like stealing, doesn't it?  But think about it.  It's not stealing - it's the possibility that he's receiving credit for your work that's "wrong".  In that respect, I can understand characterizing it as "stealing" - but not with attribution, whether expressly given or not.
Attribution Without Permission Is Still Stealing!
Third, would you feel any different if the content he'd "stolen" was attributed properly?  From the comments on Twitter this morning, most of you thought absolutely not.  And that's where I think you're absolutely wrong and short-sighted.  And this is the point I'd really like you to think about and take away from this post.  Think about the gains and losses of having someone re-post your content WITH attribution, but WITHOUT permission.  Stop reading now for a second, and please do that.  If you've been honest with yourself, I think you'll find there aren't any losses, and there are only gains. 
The "Loss Myths"
Did you "lose readers"?  No - because people reading your stuff on his site didn't find yours, so they weren't your readers to begin with.
Ah - but he's stolen search engine hits from you!  Maybe - but probably not.  If your blog/site is really as good as you (and I) think it is, then your site almost certainly ranks higher than his, so you should be getting those hits.  He's "earning" his own traffic through other means.  (And this guy, I'm sure, isn't out there trying to flog his site.)  Balance that with the fact that the attribution links to your site, so he's driving traffic and "respect" your way.  Think of your recent searches online.  I'm sure you've found hits (as I have) on "aggregator" sites - which are stupidly easy to recognize, aren't they?  Don't you click through to the source site?  Maybe not to read the original article, but definitely to see the author's other content?  Of course you do.
He's stolen ad revenue from you!  Again, I doubt it - same arguments as in the previous paragraph.  At the very worst, he's contributed to the devaluation of CPM rates across the internet by the watering down of ad clickthroughs.  But again, that shouldn't be a loss to you, since your site attracts knowledgeable SQL people - people advertisers want.
The Real and True Gains
Anyone who does see your stuff on his site and likes it will surely know where to go to get more.  And no - not his site.  Please be serious and think about how outrageous it would be for this guy to actually pass himself off as someone who could have produced that content.  Could he really land a job commensurate with that knowledge?  Get a book deal?  A speaking engagement?
You get validation that the great content you're giving away for free into the boundless internet is actually getting read and appreciated.  Sure, comments on your blog do that too - but this is one step further, IMO.
What The F*** Do I Know?
How can I comment on this, if I've never been plagiarized before?
That's not entirely true.  I recently discovered that SSAS-Info.com, run by Vidas Matelis (blog|twitter) - a very respected and knowledgeable SQL Server MVP (at least by me) had been reposting some of my content without permission on SSAS-Info.  I discovered this via Google Analytics of my own blog's activity showing hits coming from there, wondering why, and digging deeper into it.  Turns out that Vidas (just like many of us) scours the internet looking for good material.  When he finds it, he posts it on SSAS-Info.com - with a few important caveats.  He identifies the author and source on every post (not as clearly as I'd like), and only shows a paragraph of the article followed by a click-through to your site that hosts the complete article.
To be perfectly honest, my initial reaction was "WTF?  Where does he get off copying my stuff, making it look like he made it?"  (Of course, I didn't see my name there to start.)  However, after a little poking around, that initial feeling disappeared entirely. 
Was it that he only posted some of my article, and not all of it?  No - on reflection, I always hate it when I get RSS feeds that way.  I don't (intentionally) write my articles to have a teaser in the first paragraph to induce a click-through.  I want readers to read the whole thing.  They'll only read the whole thing if they like it, of course - and then my (and I think their) first reaction is to find out who wrote it so I can find more.
Was it because my name was there?  No - because to be honest, it wasn't very prominent, AND one could argue it made it look like I was a "columnist" there, and people could come back to SSAS-Info for more of my content.  (Never mind that fact is true - Vidas would have kept reposting new stuff from me, regardless of whether I found out.)
Was it because, by clicking through two other links (All Articles By "X" in the Latest Author Articles box, then the "read this" link) I discovered what Vidas was intentionally doing with his repostings?  Not exactly, although it reinforced the good feeling that I was getting.
My initial feeling disappeared because I realized I was getting exposure.  And that's one of the specific things I wanted by blogging.  Who cares if Vidas makes some money of ads on his site?  I don't have ads on mine at all.  Should I begrudge him for making money off me if I didn't want to make money off me?  Just because he's more aware, on-the-ball, or adept at doing that, I should try to stop him - even if doing so does nothing to increase my ability to do what he's doing?  Stupid isn't it?
As soon as I read his "procedure" I sent him an email asking him to post full versions of whatever he wanted to on his site.  I am now insanely happy with this arrangement - more so because Vidas decided to pick out my stuff all on his own without any lobbying from me.
The Verdict
As you've read, I'm sorely disappointed by the SQL Server "community leaders" reaction to this.  I think that those who have put in a lot of effort to educate the technical community about how to best use SQL Server would fly off the handle and jump to threats before considering a course of action that should be second-nature: education and understanding.  I do hope the site does change some things - attributions and permission would be a good start.  But more than that, I hope this guy hasn't written off the SQL speaker/blogger community as a bunch of selfish people.  I hope that he continues to "steal" content much like Vidas does to help promote the community that I'm a part of, and expand awareness that there is such a community.
No doubt there will be those who will plagiarize "better" than this guy - and intend to do it maliciously for personal gain.  Or some that refuse to attribute properly when asked.  For those, I don't mind taking advantage of the protections that copyright affords.  But rounding up a lynch mob to string up a guy on first contact is not the right thing to do.
Think.  Before you act.