Hey guys, I've been a bit inactive in the blogosphere lately due to stuff going on in my life. It shows in how little I've posted lately. The posts may continue to be sporadic for a bit, but for the moment, I want to talk about something that's bothered me for a while: Theft of intellectual property.

I know it doesn't sound very sexy, and I wouldn't be surprised if most people didn't care about the topic, but it's actually a somewhat interesting topic. You see, if I write something, I should be allowed to publish it and disseminate it to people in the manner of my choice. If I want to sell what I write, then I should be allowed to. If I want to use what I write to sell advertising space, then I should be allowed to. And if I can get enough people to like what I write, I should be allowed to make some money of it.

Now obviously, I don't make money off this site. I actually lose money since I don't run ads or anything like that. Still, that doesn't mean it is okay for people to steal what I write. Especially not if they're going to try to make money off it. At least, that's what I think. It turns out a lot of people seem to think otherwise. Interestingly, this seems to include global warming advocates as a whole. It's almost like global warming advocates feel it is okay to steal from people to advance their cause.



Now, this isn't the first time I've written about this issue. About two years ago, I wrote about how a man has created an entire business out of stealing other people's work and reselling it, all in full view of the public. Rather than people get furious at him for flagrantly breaking the law, people seem to like his business.

That was with random people as a whole though. It didn't really relate to the climate blogosphere in any direct manner. The example I want to talk about today is different. Today, I want to talk about a global warming blogger who has unlawfully copied thousands of web pages from other people in an effort to deprive them of financial benefits. For those who can't make the connection, that's called theft.

The blogger goes by the name Sou, with a blog named Hot Whopper. Her blog runs advertisements, meaning she makes some amount of money off it. And as a rule of her website, she says:

Don't post links to anti-science websites. If you think you need to link to a science disinformation or science denying website, try to resist the temptation. If you can't resist, do not link directly. Archive the web page first and then link to the archived version. Here are two options: http://archive.is/

http://www.webcitation.org/archive.php

Archving a web page can be useful for having a record of what it said/showed at a particular time. A person probably shouldn't be faulted for using archving services for a purpose like that. You'll note, however, that is not what Sou requires. Sou doesn't instruct her users to make archived copies out of fear the content of the page might change. Just look at her latest post, which begins:

Ignore the content of the post. Just look at the links. While Sou provides a link to an archived copy of the article she wants to discuss, she never provides a link to the article itself. That's clearly not because she fears the content of the article will change. If that's all there was to it, she'd provide a link to the article itself and then a link to an archived copy as backup.

But it goes beyond that. While Sou provides only a link to an archived copy of the article she discusses, she provides direct links to many other web pages. She does the same thing in blog post after blog post after blog post. That makes it clear her only reason for doing this is to use archived copies of articles so the creators of the articles don't get traffic for their websites.

That's horrible. Sou is creating copies of people's work so she can deprive them of web traffic, which can in turn deprive them of things like revenue from ad space. At the same time, she's running ads of her own so she can make money. A search of her site, or a search of archived copies she's made, shows she has done this over a thousand times. She has made over a thousand unlawful copies of articles so she could prevent people from making money off them, while at the same time drawing people's attention to those copies on her site so she could make money off them.

On a moral level, this is theft. On a social level, it's despicable. On a legal level, it's copyright violation. And yet, that doesn't seem to bother any global warming advocate. Her site is routinely promoted by global warming advocates. I think that would be bad enough given she's a deranged individual who says heinous things (like blaming bloggers for people being murdered), and much of what she writes is both stupid and wrong, but the fact she clearly behaves in an illegal manner pushes it over-the-top. There's no way anyone could think her constant copying of other people's work was innocent. The only reason a person would ever do what she does is to hurt other people by breaking the law. That's incredibly obvious, yet her site is regularly promoted by global warming advocates. Here are some tweets about it:

Global sea surface temperature and model projections, with Bob Tisdale. https://t.co/7AcqFtj5kF

By @SouBundanga — Victor Venema (@VariabilityBlog) February 13, 2016

HotWhopper: Judith Curry attacks open data advocates and encourages people who try to suppress science https://t.co/7sU5LwFucf @SouBundanga — Greg Laden (@gregladen) February 2, 2016

HotWhopper: 2015 is the hottest year on record by a massive 0.13 degrees C by @SouBundanga https://t.co/MVQ5lLL6qQ — Andy Skuce (@andyskuce) January 20, 2016

HotWhopper: Bob Tisdale won't take on Mark Boslough's bet https://t.co/VVu419BK76 — There's Physics (@theresphysics) January 2, 2016

Sad tale how #JudithCurry went from mainstream climate scientist to full-on conspiracist & climate change denier: https://t.co/U4sKa994nA — Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) November 7, 2015

An extraordinary epic of conspiracy theorising about our 97% consensus paper http://t.co/CqtgzeNTDd — John Cook (@skepticscience) March 30, 2015

There are way more examples I could provide from Twitter, and each of those users have tweeted to promote Sou's site multiple times. It's not just Twitter either. You can also find these people and others promoting her work on the websites they run. You can even find many of these people, and other global warming advocates, commenting on her site. I could find hundreds of examples of climate scientists and notable internet global warming advocates who happily promote and support her site. None condemn it.

Think about that. Leaving aside that Sou is a pathetic wretch who constantly misrepresents things, she blatantly breaks the law to commit theft, and global warming advocates just don't mind.

There's more to this topic, as there are some legal remedies one can consider when faced with a person stealing your work like this. That'll be the subject of another post. It turns out the service Sou uses to make these unlawful copies is run by a man who knows fully well his service is illegal, and he takes steps to prevent anyone from seeking legal remedies as he apparently feels it is perfectly okay to steal other people's work to harm them financially.