Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fark)   Engadget tech blog caught ripping off stories from DAPReview.com   ( fark.com) divider line
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

10284 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Mar 2006 at 2:39 PM (12 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



55 Comments     (+0 »)
 


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2006-03-20 02:42:54 PM  
Hmmm the link goes to an error page. Anyone have the details on this?
 
2006-03-20 02:43:14 PM  
farked in 60 seconds
 
2006-03-20 02:44:07 PM  
Strange it was working just a second ago.
 
2006-03-20 02:44:34 PM  
[image from theimperials.net too old to be available]
 
2006-03-20 02:44:59 PM  
Error reported as: [6]: Unable to form a valid connection to mySQL. Please check that your e107_config.php contains the correct information


I always love tech links. And I hate it when mySQL is farked.
 
2006-03-20 02:45:02 PM  
Fastest FARKed site ever?
 
2006-03-20 02:45:15 PM  
It would appear they've taken their conflict to a new level.
 
2006-03-20 02:45:15 PM  
They both suck. GGKTHXBYE
 
2006-03-20 02:46:02 PM  
I stopped reading engadget, they have obvious leanings toward which companies they report on. I want news about consumer tech not your favorite consumer tech.
 
2006-03-20 02:46:02 PM  
Yeah, site farked. I'm interested in reading the story though, I frequent Engadget and Joystiq and would hate to have to stop reading either, but I will if they are ripping off DAPReview.com.

We cannot expect companies to act ethically if we give them no incentive to do so.
 
2006-03-20 02:47:37 PM  
Can't see the story, so does "ripped off" mean "also reported on" in this context?
 
2006-03-20 02:48:57 PM  
DARP'd!!!

/Daughters of the American Revolution's Prostitutes?
 
2006-03-20 02:49:23 PM  
Uhm, Engadget is basically an aggregator, not unlike Fark. The only difference is they give a synopsis and commentary (sometimes), then link to the original article. I haven't seen what the exact issue is, but I too suspect it's along the "also reported on" lines.
 
2006-03-20 02:50:07 PM  
I read it, now it's gone. The headline sums it all up nicely though. Oh there was some screen shots of before and after they cut off the DAPReview logo, oh and the editors have some sort of nerdly feud going on. And...yeah that's about it.
 
2006-03-20 02:50:28 PM  
here is the pics and story
BTW I just ripped off their story about being ripped off


[image from img108.imageshack.us too old to be available] [image from img108.imageshack.us too old to be available]

Left: the original post at Engadget, courtesy of Google's caching system.

Right: the revised post at Engadget, as it appears now.

The story about the Ubiquitous Multimedia Informator originated from DAPreview and can be seen HERE. We were the first to find and write about this device, which we discovered at the CeBIT 2006 convention.

As you can see, the original post on Engadget (as it appeared briefly on the front page) included a link to DAPreview and the picture from DAPreview, including a blue version of our logo. We had no problem with this. In fact, we appreciate the support, since it sends traffic our way and brings new people to DAPreview.

However, on the revised version of the same story, the link to DAPreview was removed and it has a chopped version of our picture with the DAPreview logo cut out. We do have a problem with this. They have deliberately circumvented a credit to DAPreview. Instead, the story now links to another blog (mobilemag) that covered our story. This is equivalent to ripping us off.

Why they would do such a thing..? Why would they even bother to revise the news story, removing all reference to DAPreview, after the fact?

The reason is simple: DAPreview is blacklisted at Engadget. Somehow, the reference to DAPreview slipped through before Peter Rojas or Ryan Block could veto the credit.

We know this because DAPreview has a long, turbulent history with Engadget. Or more specifically, with two of the editors - Peter Rojas and Ryan Block. We have no quarrel with the other writers.

Click on the link below to read more about the history between DAPreview and Engadget...

We got off on the wrong foot with Engadget starting with THIS news post back in July of 2004. Engadget reported that the Creative Zen Touch had just starting shipping to customers, when in fact it had not. We verified this with several vendors. The title of our news post, "Creative Zen Touch now shipping? Or has Engadget lost its Touch?" was meant to be funny, but Peter Rojas took great offense to it in an email that he sent to us. Soon after, Engadget changed the news story so that it reads, "Creative taking pre-orders..." but you can tell from the user comments that it wasn't like that originally. The edited version can be seen HERE, and a later news item about it can be seen HERE, where they admit, "We sorta bungled this first time around..."

Anyway, not a big deal, right? Or so we thought.

Over the next couple of weeks, Engadget used a number of our news items, but without giving credit to DAPreview. At the time, we were the only blog that was digging up news about obscure digital audio players from China, Korea, Europe, etc so it was obvious where the news originated.

The problem appeared to be deliberate, since it was consistant and it only affected news from DAPreview. Peter Rojas was doing most of the news items back then.

We gathered evidence - taking screen shots and time/date comparisons between our news blog and theirs, and then we challenged Peter Rojas about it. Either they needed to give us credit when they used our news or we would take it public. It was obvious that he was stealing news from us, and it would be hard to deny.

Ryan Block stepped in and said that they would fix the affected news items and that they would credit properly in the future.

Everything seemed fine for awhile. They routinely used news from our blog, several items per week, and we enjoyed the influx of traffic.

But eventually they fell back into the same pattern, where they would neglect to credit us, time and time again. We would send emails to get things corrected, and sometimes they would. Sometimes they wouldn't respond, so we'd leave a comment in the news item with a link back to DAPreview.

Apparently, they didn't like that approach, because they went and deleted many of those comments. In late July (2005), we got a nasty email from Ryan Block saying that we "shouldn't air our petty grievances" in the comments. Mind you - we didn't put any nasty stuff in thier comment system, just links back to the place where they got news from - since they couldn't be bothered to do it themselves half of the time.

A couple of days later, in early August, Engadget made some kind of policy against DAPreview. They would no longer link to us directly. If they wanted to use something that came from DAPreview, they would wait for another blog to pick up the story and link to them instead.

Just like they did recently with our news item about the Ubiquitous Multimedia Informator.

See for yourself. Search Engadget for "DAPreview" - HERE. Over 100 items link to us before August 2nd, and only 3 since then... it seems that a couple of items made it past the Rojas/Block filter.

Of course, the people at Engadget can print whatever they want. If they don't want to use our news, that's fine. But they do use our news, and we have a problem with the deceitful way in which they avoid giving us credit. Basically, they're willing to rip us off because of some personal vendetta against Rob and me.

So here we are, making sure as many people as possible know what these guys are up to.

If you recall, we had a similar problem last year with T3.co.uk, and we ended up having to bust them on the front page of DAPreview in order to get something done about it.

In the end, all we're looking for is fair treatment. Engadget, and anyone else, is welcome to use our content as long as they do the responsible thing and give credit where it's due - including a link back to DAPreview.

On a side note, the CEO of Weblogs Inc., Jason Calacanis, has been known to get upset at CNET for stealing news from Engadget. He's complained about it several times on his own blog.

CNET doesnt give credit to blogger (again)
Bringing CNET into the tent, Step One: The Hat Tip
CNETs editorial elitism evaporating?

Feel free to let him know what you think about this mess. His contact information is HERE or you can send him an email at jas­o­n[nospam-﹫-backwards]s­i­na­cal­ac­*c­om.

We can be reached at a­us­ti­n­[nospam-﹫-backwards]weiverp­ad*net & ro­b[nospam-﹫-backwards]we­iver­p­a­d*ne­t.

Copies of our email correspondance with Peter Rojas and Ryan Block, along with all the evidence we've collected in the past, is available for other publications to review.
 
2006-03-20 02:51:17 PM  
I read Engadget simply to see what's new. I don't read their opinions or reviews. People who buy stuff based on one review or one review site are doomed to disappointment anyway.

In the long run, this is what, another blogger vs. blogger? Is there a valid reason why anyone beyond the owners of said blogs should care?
 
2006-03-20 02:53:26 PM  
Sounds like a case of sandy vaginas for all concerned.
 
2006-03-20 02:53:42 PM  
Meh...Why don't you send this to the Who-gives-a-sh*t channel...Thanks
 
2006-03-20 02:53:57 PM  
The Royal Cheese: Uhm, Engadget is basically an aggregator, not unlike Fark.

No, it isnt. They have writers who are regular posters on their site. Haven't counted but there cant be more than 10 different writers.

My guess is one of these writers is a lame-ass and couldnt write his own material. This shouldnt reflect on Engadget as a whole.
 
2006-03-20 02:58:35 PM  
Phone_Answering_Monkey
DARP'd!!!
/Daughters of the American Revolution's Prostitutes?



No. No. No.

Sons of Civil War Bachelors!
 
2006-03-20 03:03:16 PM  
I thought this was the point of blogs or at least there is overwhelming evidence to this fact.


wah wah wah boo hoo
 
2006-03-20 03:03:17 PM  
Good to see the liters are getting the highest quality articles.
 
2006-03-20 03:04:30 PM  
Soooo is anyone going to get in any legal trouble here?
 
2006-03-20 03:04:38 PM  
Their page explains that they have a feud with Engadget, petty bullshiat.
 
2006-03-20 03:05:29 PM  
 
2006-03-20 03:06:12 PM  
This has nothing to do with the writing. It's just about them chopping the logo off the picture and removing the link to DAPReview.com. Sand in the vagina indeed. Especially gay that a person from DAPReview.com submitted this to Fark. I will make sure to never go to that site.
 
2006-03-20 03:07:01 PM  
Yeah, engaget with there RSS feed that has been showing the same thing for the past several months.
 
2006-03-20 03:13:10 PM  
FSM, that's not even a good chop. Part of the DAPreview logo is still in the pic.

Joe091: This has nothing to do with the writing. It's just about them chopping the logo off the picture and removing the link to DAPReview.com. Sand in the vagina indeed. Especially gay that a person from DAPReview.com submitted this to Fark. I will make sure to never go to that site.

Who owns the rights to that photograph?
 
2006-03-20 03:14:34 PM  
Joe091: his has nothing to do with the writing. It's just about them chopping the logo off the picture and removing the link to DAPReview.com.

Considering that the picture is copyrighted by DAPReview, they have every right to expect credit from Engadget.

Sand in the vagina indeed. Especially gay that a person from DAPReview.com submitted this to Fark. I will make sure to never go to that site.

I'm sure they will miss the $.001 they would have otherwise gotten from Adsense. (or whoever they advertise through)

This happens a lot, Fark and TFark get ripped off by the popular media quite a bit. It's not unusual to hear headlines from Fark being read on early morning shows, verbatim, without credit being given. Fark deserves the credit for the headline, just as DAPReview deserves the credit for the news they report.
 
2006-03-20 03:15:27 PM  
Joe091 Uhhh I submitted the link and I have no asscociation with DAPReview.com. I frequent both sites for tech news and just happened upon the article on DAPReview.com. So it's "especially gay" that you don't know what your talking about.
 
2006-03-20 03:16:34 PM  
Joe091

The reason they're all hot and bothered about it, is because it isn't the first time.

You obviously didn't RTFA, even though it has been posted in this thread. Farkers manage to hit new lows everyday
 
2006-03-20 03:25:59 PM  
I've tried really really hard, but I can't seem to bring myself to give a shiat.
 
2006-03-20 03:34:28 PM  
This happens a lot, Fark and TFark get ripped off by the popular media quite a bit. It's not unusual to hear headlines from Fark being read on early morning shows, verbatim, without credit being given. Fark deserves the credit for the headline, just as DAPReview deserves the credit for the news they report.

Don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious...how can you rip off a website that just posts links to stories at other news sites? Not a TFer so maybe I'm missing something...
 
2006-03-20 03:39:09 PM  
Steezy: Don't take this the wrong way, I'm genuinely curious...how can you rip off a website that just posts links to stories at other news sites? Not a TFer so maybe I'm missing something...

Yes and no. If you look at the bottom of the page, on Fark.com, Totalfark.com, or the comments pages, you'll see this:

Terms of Service: Text comments, AudioEdit submissions, and Photoshopped images posted on Fark by registered users may not be reposted or broadcast without the express written permission or license from Fark.com, and must attribute Fark.com as the source. Fark.com is the legal owner of all copyrights in the content on this site.

This includes the headlines. It's not the fact that they use the stories, those are copyrighted by the individual websites. The problem is the fact that they use the actual Fark.com headline to introduce the story, verbatim, without giving credit to Fark.com.
 
2006-03-20 03:40:02 PM  
I understand they should give credit where credit is due, but this just doesn't seem like that big of a deal. Sure it's shady, but people do stuff like that when they get pissed. The only really bad part is using the picture with the watermark cropped out.

TheThirdEye: I thought you just wrote all that stuff you posted. I missed the part at the beginning where you said you just pasted the article, so I thought you worked for them. Chill.
 
2006-03-20 03:41:34 PM  
Malicious Bastard: wow dude. you are quite the drama queen, and a douche on top of it. Sorry if I hit a new low by not giving a shiat.
 
2006-03-20 03:43:17 PM  
Dammit, I thought it said FAPReview.
 
2006-03-20 03:51:22 PM  
[image from sv1.randomcrap.net too old to be available]
\Had to be done.
 
2006-03-20 04:04:35 PM  
Joe091:
Especially gay that a person from DAPReview.com submitted this to Fark. I will make sure to never go to that site.
...
Chill.

I love watching the original person who blew up at a comment, tell the person who responded semi-reasonaby to "chill", after the original didn't make sure that they understood what they were reading...

/works in a call center answering questions from people who don't read and understand first, just assume and blow up when the guess wrong...
 
2006-03-20 04:19:48 PM  
MacgyverJr:

Pretty sure I didn't blow up, dude. Just making a statement, but I'm glad I made your day better somehow.
 
2006-03-20 04:31:26 PM  
What a bunch of crying little biatches- on both accounts.
 
2006-03-20 05:11:49 PM  
ButteryDamage

what does that even mean?
 
2006-03-20 05:22:00 PM  
ButteryDamage

Are you sure you wasn't supposed to post a picture of a guy with a pickle in his ass?
 
2006-03-20 05:28:38 PM  
Tack: Are you sure you wasn't supposed to post a picture of a guy with a pickle in his ass?

Pickle, empty iPod, same diff.
 
2006-03-20 06:09:04 PM  
i used to visit engadget daily. then I started posting comments, as I was genuinely interested in the content and had something to say... but the trolls at engadget are indeed the mods, they will edit or delete your comments and you can't. so I stopped visiting their site pretty point-blank one day, haven't looked back... there are other better tech blogs with less slant.
 
2006-03-20 06:15:26 PM  
 
2006-03-20 06:36:26 PM  
Fark This!: Looks like some asshat Engadget writer is mucking with Wikipedia now.

Oh noes! What next, they're going to eat babies? Conduct Human Sacrifice? Mass Hysteria! Dogs and Cats living together!

\Web-melodrama at its finest
 
2006-03-20 07:17:35 PM  
ButteryDamage

What next, they're going to eat babies?

Actually no they just re-posted the original image the way the author had done before engadget's nazi "PR" *cough cough* found it and edited it.

WikiJustice
 
2006-03-20 07:23:53 PM  
Peter Rojas has a long history of not properly attributing sources.

There were times at Gizmodo when we'd have an absolute scoop and be the only source on the net with a piece of information, and Engadget would wait until one of our reader-sites covered it, and link straight to them, despite the fact that they VIAed us.

Further more, when at CES 2006 this year, I sat next to the Engadget table and was only *somewhat* surprised to hear the following exchange:

Jason: Oh, just link to that site then.
Engadget Employee: Um... Peter doesn't like us to directly link to competitor sites like that.

Apparently, Peter doesn't quite grasp the concept of the blogosphere as a whole.
 
2006-03-20 07:54:13 PM  
disillusioned: Isn't Jason Calcanis the boss?
 
Displayed 50 of 55 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report