Today, the big story was about how Skype's protocol was cracked by a Chinese company. The blogosphere was all abuzz over the news. Most, but apparently not all the bloggers who jumped on this hot news, cited the original source of the story, namely VoIPWiki.
Apparently, Jan in Malaysia plagiarized VoIPWiki's post. Here's the link to the alleged plagarism. I won't hyperlink it since I don't want to be party to giving Google PageRank to an alleged plagarist.
webtown.typepad.com/webtown/2006/07/skype_protocol_.html
I didn't see the original post by Jan in Malaysia, so I can't judge whether or not he cited VoIPWiki. I can say that Jan's article now at least does cite the original source, but whether or not that text was originally there I don't know. However, MakeYouGoHmm accidentally quoted Jan as the source of the story, which is probably what perturbed Charlie over at VoIPWiki. Charlie from VoIPWiki noticed and posted a comment on MakeYouGoHmm stating that Jan plagiarized his article and didn't include a trackback to the original source.
Whether or not Jan "pinged" VoIPWiki (to place a trackback) is probably irrelevant just as long as Jan cited the original source AND included a link to the source. The bottom of Jan's copy/paste job does include a link to VoIPWiki (Google PR is given), so he's somewhat covered. Although Jan probably should have put the copy/pasted stuff in blockquotes or only included a shorter excerpt. Also, he did state at the top of the article that it was a copy/paste job - "I am doing a total cut and paste job here. Read below. Very bold statements here below..." He should have listed the source here at the top since bloggers often quickly scan other blogs, not see the original source at the bottom and thus may misconstrue who wrote what.
It's also worth mentioning that Jan got a few trackbacks (more Google Juice) and was cited instead of VoIPWiki. Here's one example. Charlie also posted a comment there to have the reference fixed.
Here's the hilarious thing. Apparently, Jan not only copy/pasted the article, he also copied the link to the image hosted on VoIPWiki. That is, Jan was hotlinking to the image on VoIPWiki rather than copying the file to his local webserver. The original HTML image was clickable to a larger image. Well, Charlie apparently renamed his original image filename from "New Skype.jpg" to "New Skype1.jpg" and then replaced the original filename with this graphic below which now shows up in the middle of Jan's copied blog article!
OUCH!! That's cold. Nicely done Mr. VoIPWiki. Remind me to never piss you off!
Here's a screenshot of a portion of Jan's blog post in context just in case it goes offline:
Apparently, Jan in Malaysia plagiarized VoIPWiki's post. Here's the link to the alleged plagarism. I won't hyperlink it since I don't want to be party to giving Google PageRank to an alleged plagarist.
webtown.typepad.com/webtown/2006/07/skype_protocol_.html
I didn't see the original post by Jan in Malaysia, so I can't judge whether or not he cited VoIPWiki. I can say that Jan's article now at least does cite the original source, but whether or not that text was originally there I don't know. However, MakeYouGoHmm accidentally quoted Jan as the source of the story, which is probably what perturbed Charlie over at VoIPWiki. Charlie from VoIPWiki noticed and posted a comment on MakeYouGoHmm stating that Jan plagiarized his article and didn't include a trackback to the original source.
Whether or not Jan "pinged" VoIPWiki (to place a trackback) is probably irrelevant just as long as Jan cited the original source AND included a link to the source. The bottom of Jan's copy/paste job does include a link to VoIPWiki (Google PR is given), so he's somewhat covered. Although Jan probably should have put the copy/pasted stuff in blockquotes or only included a shorter excerpt. Also, he did state at the top of the article that it was a copy/paste job - "I am doing a total cut and paste job here. Read below. Very bold statements here below..." He should have listed the source here at the top since bloggers often quickly scan other blogs, not see the original source at the bottom and thus may misconstrue who wrote what.
It's also worth mentioning that Jan got a few trackbacks (more Google Juice) and was cited instead of VoIPWiki. Here's one example. Charlie also posted a comment there to have the reference fixed.
Here's the hilarious thing. Apparently, Jan not only copy/pasted the article, he also copied the link to the image hosted on VoIPWiki. That is, Jan was hotlinking to the image on VoIPWiki rather than copying the file to his local webserver. The original HTML image was clickable to a larger image. Well, Charlie apparently renamed his original image filename from "New Skype.jpg" to "New Skype1.jpg" and then replaced the original filename with this graphic below which now shows up in the middle of Jan's copied blog article!
OUCH!! That's cold. Nicely done Mr. VoIPWiki. Remind me to never piss you off!
Here's a screenshot of a portion of Jan's blog post in context just in case it goes offline:
Technorati
Del.icio.us
Slashdot
Digg
twitter
Jan copied my post within minutes of it going live. I was still editing the post when he copied it and the link behind the image was incorrect.
Jan did include a link to my Blog, but at the very end of his Blog. And the link did not include a TrackBack. This is difficult to do with Blogging systems because TrackBacks are automatic. This means he probably manually entered the link intentionally so I would not receive a track back. This was not an accident.
I spent many hours writing and researching this story. I have known this group of engineers since before they got their first round of funding and have been following their development for 8 months.
Fair use allows you to copy a portion of another person's article, not the entire article. Had Jan posted credits in front of his cut and paste there probably would not have been any mix-ups with the source of this story. His actions caused three or four different Blogs to attribute him with the story instead of VoIPWiki.com.
When I first saw Jan's article I assumed he was going to go back and clean things up. When he didn't I sent him a couple of messages but he ignored them. I even tried to call him but he did not answer the phone. After exhausting all those options I changed the graphic image and fixed the link to bring people back to the original Blog.
There is too much plagiarism going on in the Blog world today. Jan should have just quoted the parts he thought most relevant and sent a link my way. I have provided links to his Blogs in the past. I did not do anything to get revenge, just to set the record straight!
I agree, no pissing off allowed. What kills me is that the plagarized article was posted before the final edit. Does this make it 100% plagarized - i think so. From my understanding however if Jan was anonymous there would be no foul play, but it is still pretty low to rip off an extremely well written article for the purposes of... god only knows what.
It seems that Jan Geirnaert just does not know when to quit.
Now, to add to his theft of my article he has published comments that were made in confidence "off the record" and incorrectly identified without confirmation another Chinese company as the developer of the Skype compatible software that I Blogged about.
I have written him and asked him to contact some well known Bloggers to put an end to this entire fiasco. I would encourage anybody who has a feeling on this subject, one way or the other, to contact Jan and let him know your feelings. You can make a comment to his latest Blog which resurrects this issue here:
http://webtown.typepad.com/webtown/2006/07/more_skype_clon.html#comments
You can read my feelings in this letter which I posted as a comment to his web site not long ago:
--------------------
Jan:
Simple things. Because something is posted on the Internet does NOT put it in the public domain nor diminish the copyright. The author of the information retains the copyright. Very simple.
You are allowed to quote an article because of a legal concept called Fair Use. Even if you put quotes around something, you are NOT allowed to copy an entire article. That is NOT Fair Use. For more information about Fair Use go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
In your theft of my Blog the quotes you used were a smaller type face than the rest of the article and multiple Blogs mistook you for the source of the story. Further, you did not provide me with a trackback to your posting, so I had no way of easily detecting your theft of my work. You knew based on the traffic to your web site and the trackbacks you received to your stolen copy of my article that your copied Blog was being misinterpreted as the original and yet you did nothing until I took action.
Had you asked me if you could quote my entire article I would NOT have granted you permission. You stole my intellectual property and in the Blog world you are a crook!
If you were in a western country where there was copyright enforcement you could be sued. I wouldn't bother, because you are not worth my time, but if it was some other publication you may end up finding yourself in court.
You incorrectly identified Coobol as the developer of the Skype compatible software which I wrote about in my Blog. Your Blog about them was pure conjecture on your part. You did not even bother to ask Coobol for confirmation. When Coobol saw your Blog and asked to remove it you refused and then you mentioned my name in your chat messages to them.
You are hiding out in a third world country where there is little legal recourse, you are stealing other people's content for your own personal vanity. You are writing unsubstantiated rumors about companies without confirmation, and you are taking comments that were made "off the record" and publishing them on your Blog. You are ignorant with respect to the way copyright law works, and you have violated the trust of those who YOU contacted.
All of these things destroy your credibility as a ‘journalist’. You are demanding that this entire fiasco which you created all by yourself be tried in the court of public opinion.
My suggestion: change your Blog that stole my content back to the way you had originally posted it, small quotes and all. Then send an email out to ten leading Bloggers, pointing to what you did and ask them what they think. I believe you will discover a near unanimous negative response to your actions. I hereby grant you my permission to copy my Blog again expressly for this purpose and to settle this issue once and for all.
in jan's defense, he sent me the link to his article moments after it was published and it looks exactly the same as it does now. at the time that i read it was very clear to me that voipwiki was the source and that jan was excited and pasted bits from voipwiki in a fast/crude post.
charlie, jan also shared with me some of the foul & threatening comments you made to him in a chat and i have to ask, do you kiss your mother with that mouth?
as for malaysia being a 3rd world country.. that's open to debate and interpretation i guess but.. have you ever been there?
regarding jan "hiding"...the guy publishes his location for the whole world know on google earth, hardly hiding.
Well all very interesting this side-show but really besides the point. It seems to be me that I am the focus of all attention here. I am just a humble microbe. A fly on the wall.
I am not on some personal vendetta, I don't even know mr. Paglee. As far as I am concerned he could be a friendly and loving guy.
Besides I would just like to the see the executable of the Skype reverse engineered program.
That is the essence of the whole story. Where are they hiding ? And who is putting up a blog smoke screen for those who hide.
I have nothing to hide. I am just an IT-manager who is married to my Chinese Malaysia wife and living in Malaysia.
I apply no censor ship on what other people say. That role is for others. I just don't like to be scolded. Mind you I corrected my "error" immediately when Mr. Paglee got in touch with me.
Read my comment on this whole " sub-event" on www.webtown.typepad.com
I don't see anything particularly wrong with Jan's actions, as the story was quoted and there was a link to the original.
Jan's site is a collection of stories that are breaking on the web typically related to Skype and those of us who read it know it to be such.
Mr Paglee's site states that he only blogged the story because he 'thought it was newsworthy', which then begs the question, why get so upset when its distribution is extended.
Neither site makes money from advertising, therefore no 'clicks' being stolen, so where's the harm?
Plagiarism implies that Jan made a conscious effort to pass off the article as his own. This is quite clearly nonsense.
Fortunately, the only comments I have seen (except this piece ) have been in defence of Jan's intentions.
Time for all the mud-slinging to stop, and move on with the story, wherever it leads.
here the right questions. from the alledged plagiarist..
http://webtown.typepad.com/webtown/2006/07/skype_cracked_a.html
When Jan posted the article it was fully clear to me that the original post was not his one. That's all that counts isn't it? I know Americans are used to this 'sue me' culture and maybe that's the reason this guy is so upset.
I'm really questioning the purpose of Mr. Paglee's post. He is involved in Vozin Communications and he has strong relationships with other Chinese companies. He is not releasing the name of the company that did the reverse engineering (maybe his own company?) so at least his story is incomplete.
His article could be negative for Skype and it seems he could have advantage by posting this article. He is involved in a company promoting a product for Google Talk called Talqer.
For me this post has one big purpose, getting attention and trying to convince people Skype is not safe or good. That's my personal conclusion. At least Jan has no relations with a competing product.
Furthermore it seems Mr. Paglee likes the word f**ck a lot :-)
If he talks about plagiarism he should know that every country has his own laws etc. What's illegal in one country is legal in another.
As someone who has strong connections in China he should know.
My advise is, stop this bullshit and name the company that did the reverse engineering. If not, delete the post and go work on Talqer.
To the disgruntled blogger up top with first comment whos description of the entire thing as "deliberate" because trackbacks are automatic and he would have to have gone out of his way to not give you one...
Um yeah... I dont even get how they work, and i fear spreading funge like this noncence to my blog (which remains empty) due to the combination of less than blinding technical simplicity, and "blograge" ... hrm i might actualy blog about that word... and since i havent got a clue about any of this "automatic trackback" stuff any refferencing to this page will be a good old fashioned URL ...
I wonder if the runner of this blog will even care he didnt get one insignificant trackback and got a url in a read by almost no one blog instead.
I have been reading Jan's blog and I also know him quite well. For me, Jan's blog is like a "stop-over" with frequently updated newe about VoIP (specifically the Skype). I can tell the difference between his articles and the ones he helps 'promoting'. I don't have much time to read 10 different blogs about Skype so Jan's blog is very helpful for me. I can always go to the original blogs from his blog (if not via links he might have forgotten to provide, I know how to 'google' for them!). I think Jan should be thanked (instead of condemned) for:
1) easing readers to get recent news on Skype,
2) being the 'banner' to promote other blogs on Skype.
If being a first-world class citizen means that I have to see things from a narrow scope and that I can curse and sue other people for even the simplest reason, then I'd rather Malaysia not be the first-world country as defined by some arrogant first-world country's citizens. No country should ideally copy America. We can however learn from success and mistakes first-world countries have made throughout our journey to become a developed nation (economically, socially, politically, and not to forget MORALLY) according to our own mould. Mind you!
I know this is really old, but it is a really useful strategy to fight plagiarism.
Im about to try it myself on the next posts of my blog, thank you!
I personally use the http://www.copygator.com website to find duplicated content. To me it has a number of benefits over copyscape and copyrightspot:
1. it's automated and brings me results instead of me searching for duplicated content. All i had to do was submit my feed and it started monitoring my feed showing me who's republished my articles on the web.
2. i get notified by email so it contacts me when it finds copies of my articles online.
3. i use their image badge feature to alert me directly on my website when my content is being lifted.
4. it's a free service as opposed the "per page" cost of copyscape/copysentry.