After having read Barmar's article about digital plagiarism, he explained how some websites had used his content without his regard. But this then got me thinking, at the end of his article he identifies with the pure fact that...he actually does not mind if he's work is being plagiarized, as long as it draws traffic towards his article!
Its alright as long as there is exposure to my articles. This is my stance on it. I'm sure Microsoft does not care if demo versions of IE9 are floating around, as long as that demo version somehow leads to a sale on the full version or a sale of some other Microsoft product. It comes back to piracy in some way, that's how iTunes started. Don't buy the physical cd, go online like you would normally steal mp3's, and then just let the better of your morality take over, and buy the mp3 for $2!
I guess its ok if:
This leads to the actual truth about plagiarism. If it somehow brings you traffic to your blog, which inevitably means more hits which equates to more money, you won't worry or care! But, will you then pay that website, or person who plagiarized your work, and then unknowingly and most probably unintentionally lead more hits to your blog? I doubt that anyone would pay the people who promote their work! But as soon as they see their work on some other site, its called plagiarism.
Think about it...If you see your work on another website, someone quoting your work and linking it, you would immediately ask...who gave them the right...and shout plagiarism from the top of a mountain! But 5 minutes into the shout, you are told that this link actually brought with it 10 000 views through redirected traffic to your original blog...it somehow becomes o.k?
So, we can go off on a tangent and proclaim once and for all, its not plagiarism if it does benefit you, the owner, the originator of the material!