I did indead find some of it amusing in an odd sort of way (much like spoonerisums etc).

The point I was trying to get across is that although I agree with you that it is “passing off” etc getting a judge to agree may well be difficult.

The “rules etc” I used are those that have been derived from cases that have been up before both a judge and a “tribunal of fact” and have made it into the rule of thumb for “copyright” and “passing off” that is losely based on case law.

The real problem is that this is an almost entirly new take on “copyright” and “passing off” that effectivly has no (reliable?) case law yet. Me’ learned bretherin tend to be a conservative bunch at the best of times and often look to previous judgments in (what they consioder to be) related cases. Which is why you often get some very strange outcomes on “bleading edge” cases.

Which gives rise to the other problem of dealing with such new types of “infringment”, by the time “me learned bretherin” catch up with the (potential) ofenders they have (usually) moved on to a newer form of offence and so like the “Red Queens Race” the game goes on….

And before anybody askes no I have no idea on how to correct the problem and I would be deeply suspicious of anybody who did propose a solution (due to the “law of unforcean consiquences”).

Applying rules from the fashion industry is complete nonsense… as would be applying rules that apply specifically to poetry or lyrics (where a few lines will get you in trouble). It’s also unwise to apply US guidelines in the UK or vice versa.

However, I stick to my view that the (semi?)automated translation of the piece from English into Gibberish by consistent replacement of terms is not sufficient to make a new work. Hence the original copyright remains. In the case of the GFDL material this isn’t an issue, but for the other article I mentioned (and many more, see the site) the text, in my view, clearly infringes.

As to amusement, I’m sorry you didn’t laugh, try some more of the site! I particularly like “If you’re short of money for coins and you need a steadfast labyrinth hosting expert, look overseas!”

You say,

“some articles are clearly copyright infringements”

and then,

“appears to be entirely covered by copyright, yet it has been rendered into”

It has clearly been modified, if it is more than 30% (the rule used in fashion industry) then the copyright is broken.

However if you consider it a re-arangment as in the musical sense then “the peice” has to retain sufficient of the original to be recognisable to an audience therefore very minor variations count as seperate derivative works.

You also refere to “this amusement” well satire is a form of amusment I could easily see somebody claiming (if pushed) that it is satire and the bar on that is a lot lower than 30%.

So although I agree with you that ethicaly thay have “passed off” I doubt that you would get a judge to agree on a single page (multiple pages however might be different as intent might be established).

One other thing that is interesting is that there is at least one company which provides FULL LEGITIMATE articles for such spam sites, where people PAY to have their articles included!

And people using this site are willing to pay the cost to do blog spam through Blogger’s CAPTCHA! So someone was willing to spend approximately $.01 to put an add spam on my blog pointing to their URLS!

My writeup on it is
http://nweaver.blogspot.com/2007/12/comment-spam-is-worth-real-money_1124.html

The other interesting question is since google adds are pay per CLICK, you have to be at least remotely revelant. What is the payment on theses adds?