Your suggestion shall of course be taken into account. But it is also true that there is a wide variety of content gobblers who WATBlog caters to. Yet, if your data about our major readership happens to be true and if you can back it up with some proof, we just might give your advise a go.

Oh, by the way, just a little query. Did you ever feel that we at WATBlog might have posted something, calling it exclusive, whereas in reality such hadn’t been the case? Just being curious, that is all.

Why do I feel that you are getting exasperated with me?
Anyway, as far as I am concerned, I am just trying to debate an idea with you, and not “argue” with you. Hope you understand that.

Coming back to our topic, yes, exclusivity definitely counts. But if you aren’t exclusive, it doesn’t bring legal issues into the picture. Plagiarism does.

Now, we need to decide on what is plagiarism and what isn’t. You say, if someone else breaks a news then the credit must be given to the news breaker. Let us take up a scenario when blogger first provided the openid support. Suppose, I too am a blogger user but since I don’t use it too frequently, I happen to figure out the new feature a week after the rollout. Now, I happen to blog about it on my blog. Of course, in one week, any news is stale news and a well known site like techcrunch must surely have broken the news already, in the blogosphere. But in this case, am I required to give credits to Techcrunch or even the official Blogger blog? Shall I still be called a plagiarist of idea?

@ Raghav

We aren’t “wasting” our time on buzzar, it’s the idea of content generation and aggregation that we are trying to analyze. Moreover, tell me something. If one newspaper happens to report a piece of news one day later than the rest, should that mean that the particular newspaper has plagiarized the piece? Same goes with other blogs and techcrunch & gigaom. Moreover, If you happen to follow WATBlog but not GigaOm, would you not be happy if we posted a news too?

Try pondering on this idea.

Now, it’s perfectly legal for sites like Google News to search for content and poviding you with links to those articles as and when you ask for them. However, if buzzar.tv tries something similar, they should idealy link to pages that contain the ads. Moreover, when you talk about tinkering with original content, keeping the idea same, are their actual sites that do this kind of stuff? I mean, it’s a hell kind of effort, isn’t it?

Coming to your analogy regarding the admaker in London, you never mentioned why would the concerned indian company allow its commercial to run on such a site? Although I am not too sure about the legal procedures but I suspect it’s kind of illegal (technically) to upload commercials on Youtube as well. The fact that companies don’t object is because it gives them free publicity. Once they start realizing that these freely distributed videos are husting their brands too, I am sure they shall stand up and act.

I know there are a lot many people who earn their bread on advertising. But, what still alludes me is why should one even pay a penny to watch the commercials that he can watch for free on YouTube? Moreover, even if we consider a situation where it’s only that XYZ site of yours that contains the videos, why would still pay to watch them?

And…why would you really want buzzar.tv too to charge consumers to check out the content in their site? Moreover, considering the fact they have put up wiki pages, I doubt if they shall ever monetize the content access. To the best of my understanding, the only place where they shall try earning money from is by charging the companies whose brands they showcase on the website.