DailyFaceoff.com stealing from LeftWingLock!

[Scribe]

Using my conclusions and research would be stealing. Using links I found and posted would be okay. Doing it 10 times a day for 100 days in a row... is not.
So when is it okay? Twice a day for 50 days in a row? Three times a day for 10 days in a row? See what I'm saying?
The line is somewhere... I would say that if you do it on consecutive days and it's four or five links or more, then you have to give props. Such a gray area...

If DFO gave credit to LWL all this time, would it then be okay? Again, I have to wonder. Glad I'm not involved

I thought about this yesterday when I posted a link to Puck Rakers blog. A guy was asking a question about the Rick Nash's injury.

I subscribe to the theory that you should teach a man to fish, so he can feed himself for a lifetime -- rather than give him some fish so he can eat for a day.

That said, some guys just don't want to fish because it's too much work. They'd rather have it served up on a platter.

That's what sites like this do. It spends time collecting information from around the Internet and other sources and presents them -- and gives attribution. That's work that takes time -- but it's not clear if that is governed by copyright law. Also, there are observations and analysis which are copyrighted material.

This would make an interesting legal case and I'm sure it's been argued somewhere already, although I haven't heard about it or what the results were. A rainy day project, perhaps?

As Internet sites develop new business models, the legal definition of what is copyrighted material must be defined clearly. Does it include a link produced by research?

Certainly, from an ethical point of view, if DFO is providing the same service as Left Wing Lock, then DFO should not poach links from LWL. Sure it saves them time, but knowing they like to cut corners like makes me doubt their willingness to work. It's lazy.

I'd rather support the site that researches source for information and provides links to me, rather than a site that screws the pooch and does a simple cut and paste job of somebody else's work.

Imagine you're a farm owner and you've hired two guys to pick tomatoes for you. Joe goes out into the field and picks a bushel of tomatoes and brings you the basket of tomatoes which he dumps into a big bin. Fred, meanwhile, has simply gone to the other side of the big bin and -- while you weren't looking -- filled a basket with tomatoes that have already been picked. He walks around the corner with a bushel and presents this as a bushel of tomatoes that he's picked.

Fred has picked the tomatoes, but hasn't done the same work as Joe. In fact, he's profiting from Joe's work because the job of filling his basket was much easier. Neither Fred nor Joe own the tomatoes, but that's not the point here. It's probably not a question of stealing -- unless the definition of theft is is redefined or modernized -- but it certainly is an example of unethical behaviour.

[ultrawhiteness]

you just blew my mind a little, Scribe.

[repenttokyo]

So the admin of LeftWingLock.com, our favourite starting goalie site posted recently that his site has been the victim of content theft from Dailyfaceoff.com:

http://www.leftwinglock.com/?p=3883

I emailed the Dailyfaceoff.com admin about the issue and this was our rather amusing exchange:

Me: >
> Hi,
>
> I was just curious as to your response to the accusation and proof that
> you have been stealing content from LeftWingLock.com:
>
> http://www.leftwinglock.com/?p=3883
>
> So far, I have seen no official response from your site.


1st response:

On 4/7/2010 4:06 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> > You missed our discussion on the subject yesterday...
> >


My reply:

Subject: Re: Why are you stealing content from LeftWingLock?
Sent: Apr 7, 2010 4:08 PM

Where can I find this discussion?


Second response:

On 4/7/2010 4:09 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> We removed it.
>
> Don't believe everything you read.


LOL!!!!!!!

So I replied:

To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why are you stealing content from LeftWingLock?
Sent: Apr 7, 2010 4:12 PM

I see. So you removed the discussion that somehow vindicates you, but I
should distrust the people who are upfront and completely transparent
about the issue and haven't hidden any of their information.

That makes total sense.

I'm done with your site - best of luck with the thievery.


He replied with : Cheers.

Sounds like a real winner.

[repenttokyo]

i just saw that my post got merged over here to this bigger thread.

after reading some of the comments in this thread, I have to contribute.

I am a professional writer. I follow several industries very closely, and work within them on a daily basis.

You can't do what DFO did and maintain any credibility. I write both online and in print. You can't steal from sources. It's ridiculous to attempt to defend that kind of thing as DFO did. Given DFO's poor understanding of how a business should be run, I wouldn't be surprised to see them fade out in the future.

[doulos]

The fact that they shut down the "discussion" they had going on their website and tried to sweep it under the carpet only makes it worse.

Bush league.

Hope they in fact do fade away, though I don't have as much faith in the internet community as you do RT.

[repenttokyo]

The fact that they shut down the "discussion" they had going on their website and tried to sweep it under the carpet only makes it worse.

Bush league.

yes, totally.

[Anonymous]

I don't know how anyone can say this is right. Its clearly not illegal, but it is definitely sleazy. LWL puts in all of the effort and is very good at hunting down information.

I can't believe the people that are saying this is a good business model, and we should just live with it and support it. This is hardly the business world, its one person providing a free service, and then another person re-branding this as their service.

I could do my own research for my thesis, or steal it from a competitor, spend a little while making it pretty and then turn it in. I would get the PHD and it would be much easier because after all, if someone else already did the work, why would I do it again?

[Shoeless]

I don't know how anyone can say this is right. Its clearly not illegal, but it is definitely sleazy. LWL puts in all of the effort and is very good at hunting down information.

I can't believe the people that are saying this is a good business model, and we should just live with it and support it. This is hardly the business world, its one person providing a free service, and then another person re-branding this as their service.

I could do my own research for my thesis, or steal it from a competitor, spend a little while making it pretty and then turn it in. I would get the PHD and it would be much easier because after all, if someone else already did the work, why would I do it again?

It worked for Bill Gates.

[BlackGold]

It worked for Bill Gates.

Except that the alternatives to Microsoft were not so easy to use/access. LWL is just another mouse click away.

This thread reminds me of another thread where someone had posted saying LWL was garbage and made up all of their sources. Well I guess LWL's sources were so well fabricated that DFO got tricked into stealing them

(Of course those of us that use LWL know that they are pretty spot on with their information)

[repenttokyo]

It worked for Bill Gates.

how so? gates dropped out of harvard in 1975.

if you are talking about DOS, gates bought DOSfrom its original coder. LWW hasn't received any monies from these faceoff dudes.

[DocOctagon]

I don't know, I'm going to stop using the site. I'll just go with Fantasy Hockey 911, or Left Wing Lock.

It's a lot of work to find that information, and was always very impressed with the people that took the time to collect it. God knows I'm too lazy to do it, and I just can't condone stealing the links.

The whole point of those sites is that they do the work we don't want to, but one of those sites clearly isn't doing any work. They're just stealing all the info and packaging it a little differently. Who knows where they steal the rest of their info from.

Or, I guess I could just start my own site, have one friend in charge of stealing LWL's starting goalies, one friend take DFO's line combos, and I could steal Dobber's player rankings.

It's a slippery slope - don't support the clown because all the other info is probably just stolen too. Once you see how easy it is, I'm sure the temptation is to just take more info to make your site better. Take Yahoo's player rankings, just witch up Staal and Nash, or Dobber's, or some other sites line combos. It's too easy once you resign yourself to being that lazy.

[Katharsis]

Hah! Did they really remove the whole discussion they posted in response?

That's just so fitting.

[DocOctagon]

Oh god, I just checked the player rankings, I only used the site for the goalies before. It does sort of look like Yahoo's. lol. i'm sure they switched the players around, but that might as well be the yahoo page.

[Dakkster]

The fact that they shut down the "discussion" they had going on their website and tried to sweep it under the carpet only makes it worse.

Bush league.

Hope they in fact do fade away, though I don't have as much faith in the internet community as you do RT.

I gotta say, I'm soooooo tempted to respond to that kind of bush league behavior by virtually purging this forum of every positive mention of that fraud site, but right now I'm too lazy.

[Mr. Guru]

What a touchy subject!!

As sentium pointed out: DFO's site looks better because they have more time to spend on that part of the site.

Its a "douchebag" move, but a smart "business" plan.

They "steal" third party links from other sites, and post it on their one-stop-shop-site.

They probably DO take all the information from other sites, tweak it, claim it as their own, and now fantasy hockey junkies have a website to check: goalie starts, line combos, player rankings, and whatever else DOF has to offer.

I have never been to either site until I read this thread. Damn negative? publicity, but I probably won't go back to either site anyways.