What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Not sure what can be done besides contacting the offender or sending a DMCA notice, but programmingbulls.com seems to clearly be ripping off Stack Overflow content without proper any attribution. For example, this post is a copy of this question. Whats odd though, is that some of the words have been slightly modified. They are also outranking Stack Overflow on Google when searching for "Facebook Unauthorized IP address exception".

More examples:

Original, Cloned

Original, Cloned

Basically, all posts listed on this page.

share|improve this question
3  
If, its only one question, maybe the OP posted it to two different sites? –  Toon Krijthe Jun 15 '11 at 6:59
    
That was only one example. –  bkaid Jun 15 '11 at 7:02
    
@Gamecat: Valid point. I've cross-posted several questions over at MSDN myself. –  John Jun 16 '11 at 17:51
    
There are subtle differences between the questions that do make it look like it may have been cross-posted. No greeting on the SO version for one (and it wasn't just edited out, it was never there)... –  Daniel DiPaolo Jun 16 '11 at 17:53
    
Except there is no place to submit entries there so I doubt everyone is cross-posting there. I'm guessing he has some script to do some kind strange text replacement. I added more examples. –  bkaid Jun 16 '11 at 18:20
4  
@OffBySome oh my you seem to be correct, as most of those examples have some generic greeting added. He's not only taking the content and not attributing it, he's taking it and making it worse. –  Daniel DiPaolo Jun 16 '11 at 18:21
    
@Daniel DiPaolo yep - seems like your typical adsense scam. –  bkaid Jun 16 '11 at 18:24
    
@OffBySome seems weird to have asked about how to be compliant (your first link) and then just throw it out the window, but with the greeting addition I can't see it being anything other than purposeful modification –  Daniel DiPaolo Jun 16 '11 at 18:25
1  
How about we just fire off an email to him/her and ask politely to begin with? I can do that easily enough. –  Lasse V. Karlsen Jun 16 '11 at 18:28
    
Email sent, see my own answer below with the content. –  Lasse V. Karlsen Jun 16 '11 at 18:36
1  
It's fun to stay at the D-M-C-A.... –  Pëkka Jun 16 '11 at 18:41
    
He has replied, see my edited answer. Looks like this will work out OK. –  Lasse V. Karlsen Jun 16 '11 at 19:02
    
Is it just me or are they just copying questions and no answers? I'm not seeing any answers on any of the posts. –  Jeff Mercado Jun 16 '11 at 19:08
    
@DanielDiPaolo salutations are now automatically removed from posts when they are created. When this was implemented, it was also applied retroactively. The questions were likely the same initially, but the version on Stack Overflow has changed since it was scraped. –  nhinkle Jun 16 '11 at 23:13
    
@nhinkle those questions are from yesterday and the filtering started over a week ago, so they should never have hit the website or any of its data feeds with those greetings –  Daniel DiPaolo Jun 16 '11 at 23:15

3 Answers 3

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Ok, I took it upon myself to send off an email to programmingbulls@gmail.com, the email address listed on the Contact us form related to website comments:


Attribution required for Stack Overflow content

Hi.

Did you know that you are in violation of the attribution requirements rights for the content on Stack Overflow?

That's right! The posts you lifted (here: http://programmingbulls.com/tech) require you to attribute the contents of those back to Stack Overflow, where you got them.

Evidence of copying:

The requirements are listed here:

http://blog.stackoverflow.com/2009/06/attribution-required/

Specifically, this:

Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).

Evidently you have failed to comply with the requirements.

Do you plan on changing the site to show the required attribution?

There is a post on meta.stackoverflow.com about your website - Website in violation of attribution policy? - you should log on and weigh in with your thoughts on the matter.

--
Lasse Vågsæther Karlsen


I'll edit in any replies I get but I have low hopes.


I got a reply about a minute ago:

HI Lasse,

I had tried to be compliant with SO postings. See here: Is my website compatible with Stackoverflow Content Terms and Conditions?

Let me fix these postings as well this week to avoid any violation.


Basically, if he follows through, and considering he posted in 2010 about his site and asked for help, I have no doubt he will comply with the requirements.

share|improve this answer
    
Pitchforks and torches at the ready –  jmfsg Jun 16 '11 at 18:41
    
I hope it won't come to that, let's see what he does with some gentle and polite prodding. If he adds the required attribution, he's well within his rights to do what he did, that's what the license is all about. So let's see what happens. –  Lasse V. Karlsen Jun 16 '11 at 18:44
2  
Regardless, it's still a low quality spam site that adds absolutely no value to Stack Overflow content. And actually makes it worse by changing the content for the worse. What is Stack Overflow's stance on distastefully changing the content? –  bkaid Jun 16 '11 at 19:13
3  
That is an altogether different question or problem, I agree. However, if he complies with the attribution rights, I'm not sure there is any more that can be done. I mean, you can't say "This is for everyone as long as they attribute the original source. Oh, except for you, but yeah, for everyone". –  Lasse V. Karlsen Jun 16 '11 at 19:36

The navigation on that site is pretty horrible, so it's difficult to get a better idea of just what's going on.

A handful of their copied questions come with a link back to SO:

Screenshot with "View Stackoverflow Question" visible

share|improve this answer
1  
The link is not on the post I linked. And the link alone doesn't meet attribution guidelines. –  bkaid Jun 15 '11 at 7:13
    
Ha! So it isn't. –  sarnold Jun 15 '11 at 7:25

I had tried to be compliant with SO postings earlier as well. See here: Is my website compatible with Stackoverflow Content Terms and Conditions?

Let me fix these postings as well this week to avoid any violation. Sorry.

share|improve this answer
8  
How about just dont put put Stack Overflow content on your spam site to try and generate ad sense money without adding any value to the internet? –  bkaid Jun 16 '11 at 19:12
    
Thanks for coming back to respond. –  Anna Lear Jun 16 '11 at 20:48

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .