3955 group website steals article from amfone.net

[w3jn]

I'm pretty pissed that an article I wrote was stolen and plagiarized, without bothering to give credit to this website or myself.

The stolen version:  http://www.3955.us/best%20and%20worst%20receivers.htm

The article here:  http://amfone.net/ECSound/JNRECS.html

Perhaps I ought to be flattered that someone thought highly enough of it to steal it, but at LEAST ask first and give credit...

[K1JJ]

Yep, be flattered, my friend... it really IS a compliment.   

Send him a heading with your name, call, etc to add to the top - asking him to credit you for the article.   I'm sure he will agree to that, now that it has been pointed out.

T

[KA1ZGC]

As we used to say on usenet: "Attribution, dammit!"

When attempting to be academic, plagiarism is not good form. Hopefully they'll listen to a gentle reminder.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

It's funny they even left in your opening line, One of the most frequently-asked questions on the AM Forum is “What receiver should I buy?”

No further links or references to the AM Forum are given. I guess it makes sense though. The person who produced the page proudly posts this at the bottom:

Website Design by W2KJM "The GRAND Dummy" © 2008

[W1AEX]

Your feeling of being plundered is understandable. I agree with the posts above. Be flattered, and then contact the 3955 group and politely request that you be credited, and that in the future, they ask permission before publishing your work.

Nice article by the way!

[w3jn]

Thanks, guys.  As per the immortal Emil Faber's slogan "Knowledge is Good", I'd have no problem with them taking it, providing they (a) asked first, (b) attributed the article to me and amfone, and (c) got Gary's permission. 

In my view the article belongs to this site, and they oughta seek Gary's permission.

Those guys seem to like AM quite a bit; at first I thought it was put there for anti-AMers to throw stones at it but that seems not to be the case.

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

I don't think any of us are lookng to make money off our writings. The intent is to distribute the info widely. But proper attribution should be given, if for no other reason than to allow someone with further questions to contact the author.

The site is interesting in that it's billed as the 3955 net page, but 98% of it has nothing to do with the net/group. I noticed a few other "plagarized" items on the site too - like the animated AM block diagram.

[W1ATR]

I would just shoot them an email and say WTF. I wouldn't mind if they want to cut/paste, but its real low brow not to give credit where credit is due.

They 'do' talk up AM a bit on the top left link, so I probably wouldn't blast 'em.

http://www.3955.us/

[W2VW]

That's what you get for telling people their crappy receivers are crappy. What were you thinking?

 

[WA3VJB]

That's what you get for telling people their crappy receivers are crappy. What were you thinking?

 

And here they were, nice and smug that they had a great article!

[The Slab Bacon]

Check out the sidebar    Balums?? 

[W3RSW]

"OK FINE"
Interesting that all the  " 'ism's " will go unappreciated.
Reminds me of the chip copy, right down to the Intel TM.
_-uan


But I will say the graphics on the 3955 site are stupendous. Clarksburg, WVa even came up with the US flag as the world rotated.
http://www.3955.us/

And they do credit the AM window but don't seem to know about AMfone.net
I take that back. These links may work.  Uh, where have I seen those dancing meters before?  For that matter, just about everything on the site. They are happy with AM though.  at least the 'dummy' webmaster is. We ought to convert them or at least get "JN's" website mentioned. 
http://www.w2blc.us/linkam.htm
They really are trying, just not archival library types.
http://3955.us/AM%20Page.htm

[k4kyv]

That's what you get for telling people their crappy receivers are crappy. What were you thinking?

Some of those "crappy" receivers can be made to perform excellently with just a few, easily reversible modifications. 

Of course, if you insist that everything "vintage" must remain 100% "stock" at all costs, then you're stuck with what you've got.

[w3jn]

THey do have a link to amfone.net on the bottom of their AM page.

Anyway W2TGR sent me an email, apologized, and said he'd remove the article.  I had told him I had no problem with it so long as he gave the proper source attributions and got Gary's permission... guess it was just easier to pull it.

[W1DAN]

JN:

Feel better. Anyone normal would attribute the sources. Know you are better than him.

That web site is really not very well designed.

I have also seen the Polycom "whitepaper"...it is mis-applied to ham radio.

Dan

[W1ATR]

Check out the sidebar    Balums?? 

That wasn't a one off mistake either. Click the link to Balums. If you want to reg on their forums, you'll need a confermation number. I'm sure they are a swell buncha guys, but even nice guys need Spelling Cow.

[w3jn]

And whoever put my article up there changed some of it to use the hillbilly form of "plural's".  Sheesh, why is it so hard to remember you just add an "s" with no apostrophe...

[Opcom]

Wouldn't it be better for everyone's knowledge if 3995 had added the attribution rather than pulling the article? It's better to have good articles like that in several places for ease-of-finding/redundancy/backup. There is certainly enough mindless drivel duplicated and backed up that way.. we need balance!

I make no $ off articles or scanning, so attribution makes the difference to me, and I try to treat others as I would like to be treated.

As for the site, it smalles a bit like plastic. You can tell they put some effort into it, but I dunno. The changing of the article to hillbilly forms seems inline with the feel of the voodoo page. It is hard to take the theme seriously, despite some interesting resources

The voodoo page reminded me of the "lying living legend" CB radio site for some reason.
http://www.triplel.happyhost.org/Ham%20Linears/
and space case's site:
http://www.angelfire.com/in/spacemycase/

[Steve - WB3HUZ]

The site has tons of links to other sites and articles. Why not just link to the article on this site? You don't even need to ask permission to do that.   

[Todd, KA1KAQ]

Yep, you know you're lame when you have to lift the work of others to post on your site in hopes of appearing relevant. I seem to recall someone who is a member here doing the same thing with articles on the AMWindow a few years back. Wonder if this lid shows up in the membership list? If so, he might've also felt so-entitled.

I bet a thread on QRZ and a few other sites about the 3955 group would have some impact. QRZ is full of net trolls and re-posters. Is it really a 'group' or just another one of these nit-wit 'SEE ME!!' types?

[w3jn]

See, QRZ is how I found that.  Those guys posted their 60th anniversary or something, and I took a look.  I did ask in that thread on QRZ why they stole my article.

Which, by the way, despite a promise to take it down immediately, is still up on the 3955 website.

[W1AEX]

Which, by the way, despite a promise to take it down immediately, is still up on the 3955 website.

From what I can see, they removed the link on their anchor page, so the article is no longer available to someone who enters their site in the normal way at   

http://www.3955.us/

I noticed last night that the article was no longer available, unless you already knew the direct link to it. I would imagine that someone will either edit or delete the page at some point. As previously mentioned, it would be nice if they simply put a link to your article at AMFone in their sidebar instead of supplying their own version of it. It's a nice article, seems a shame to see access to it go away over there, especially since I doubt it was done maliciously.

[ke7trp]

Its not stealing. You posted it on a public forum.  I know how you feel. I have this kind of thing happen to me all the time. Someone takes information that I have posted or put on my website, and then regurgitates that all over the net.

I think its wrong what He did but its not the first time or the last.

C

[W3RSW]

You guys are too hard on them.  I too think a simple request for acknowledgement or footnote reference would have been sufficient.

Hey, we all copy each other all the time, repeat grand design of others without ever remembering who originated what, quote stuff right out of handbooks as thought it was original....    and as far as our minds go, believe it.   It's called advancement of the art, advancement of the species, "doncha know."(_{op.cit.,c.f. Steve, first time I heard it.)}

And since when are N2WDS,W2TGR, & W2KJM hillbillies?
Some of these guys might want to join us.  I might even know some of them, met them at Butler, etc.

Guess I'll have to check their addresses... must've all moved to eastern Kentucky.
"...of "coarse" there's nothing wrong with eastern Ky."
 

[w3jn]

Its not stealing. You posted it on a public forum.  
C

You're wrong.

Is it OK to copy material from a website?

The short answer to this question is "no," unless the author's permission has been received. Copying material from a website and posting in on another website or publishing it in a newsletter, for example, may violate the copyright of the person who developed the website. The information need not have a copyright notice or symbol associated with it to be copyrighted, because copyright protection arises as soon as an author creates a work of original expression and fixes it in a tangible medium. The contents of a website are no different than the contents of a book or magazine in terms of copyright protection; the fact that website publishing is vastly easier than other types of publishing makes no difference.

Copyright law allows "fair use" of small parts of copyrighted works without the permission of the author. If the reproduction is for the purpose of criticism, news reporting, teaching, or research it is more likely to be fair use than if it is copied for commercial purposes. It is difficult to make this determination in advance, however. An example of fair use would be a book reviewer quoting a few lines from a book in an online book review.

A federal law passed in 1998, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, makes it clear that materials published on the Internet are protected by U.S. copyright laws. The law makes some exceptions that are specific to Internet law. Internet service providers (such as AOL) can escape liability for infringing the copyright of materials that merely pass through their computers, for example in E-mail messages. If an Internet service provider removes infringing material promptly upon request, it also can escape liability.

And Rob, although the link was removed it's still posted there and is accessible by googling a phrase inthe article. The direct link comes right up.