It's not stealing if I'm not a professional! Oct 18, 09:59

and

Before reading the following I highly recommend that you check out Dicle’s post Glowing Like Angels, Kate’s response Oh How Kind and Jem’s take on the situation Chasing the Drama Llama.

Whilst going through Kate’s comments and laughing at the pathetic attempts at insulting Dicle and Jem I came across dolbana.com, an online magazine that specializes in everything from coffee to celebrities. They have an article on the Outspoken-Kate drama mentioned in the above paragraph where they talk about how Kate is in fact innocent of all charges. I beg to differ.

Dolbana.com – There’s so much drama going on with Outspoken-Kate lately. Have you noticed? More and more people are complaining how they think Kate copies but, it doesn’t seem true. Kate has been around longer than most sites out there and hers has had most tutorials/designs/graphics before any other sites. Why else would other top sites accept her affiliation?

Jessica had layouting [sic] tutorials before Kate did, I had Angelic Glow tutorials on my own website before Kate was a teenager. It’s a pretty safe bet to say that by now there is nothing original about anything on the Internet. Kate has no claim to those tutorials, Kate did not come up with those tutorials, Kate is lying if she has ever said she came up with them all by herself.

I don’t see Zeldman, Myers or Veerle jumping at the chance to affiliate with Kate. Ever heard of The Zeldman effect? It’s similar to the Digg effect. Why isn’t V rushing to fill out the affiliation form on Kate’s site? Oh right, because in the grand scheme of things Outspoken-Kate is a little bug who will soon be crushed by bigger, better websites. No one really cares what Kate has to say because it’s all drivel, sure there are a few people who visit it religiously and join what is referred to as “Team Kate”, but that doesn’t make Kate right in this matter and it certainly doesn’t mask the fact that she blatantly steals from other people.

Dolbana.com – Most sites harrassing her are young underground sites that don’t have much experience. For instance, Dicle, critisizes every site she can get her grimy little fingers to type about. What is with sites complaining about others?

My site is neither underground nor young. In fact yesterday was the 1 year, 7 months and 1 day birthday of my domain. Before babblative I owned valcha.net from sometime in April 2005 to February 2006. Before valcha I owned becky.valcha.net, becky.sweet-toffee.org, just-dreaming.net/frosted and vampires-kiss.net/sd. Before all of those subdomains I was on a variety of free hosts ranging from Geocities to Freewebs and pretty much everything in between. I’ve been doing the website thing since 2001. If you want to be pedantic I came up with the Angelic Glow long before Kate ever did and it was on my site up until a year and a half ago. So I would assume that because of my web history my opinion will carry more weight than Dicle’s, right? Right.

Kate is wrong, wrong, wrong and Dicle is right, right right. Kate has no claim to anything she makes and she has no right asking people to link her for what she does. She stole those generic tutorials from other sites in spite of her protestations and whinging. There I said it, of course, I’m sure my opinion is still invalid because I don’t condone redistributing things that don’t belong to me. Oh and I own Internet Police and I’m friends with Jemjabunkle. Damnit.

Dicle hasn’t criticized my site (note that I spelled “criticized” correctly), nor has she gone after anyone I’ve linked. I wonder why? Perhaps because some sites have owners that show signs of intelligence and she just hasn’t gotten around to me. The issue here is that several people’s stupid actions were brought to light publicly by someone they cannot control. That’s fine, I don’t like it when people point out that I’m stupid, but I try to act like an adult about it. Leaving anonymous comments and then using a very weak argument to get my point across is not something I’d ever do. Kate would though and she already has!

Has it ever occurred to any of you that Kate is doing to Dicle what Dicle did to her? Sure Dicle did it first, but if Kate is truly right then she shouldn’t have to right an indignant response to Dicle’s claims on her blog, she should be able to ignore it and go on her merry way. The fact is that Kate is completely in the wrong here and she knows it, she just doesn’t want to admit it. Times like this I’m glad I’m on the right side. Remember boys and girls: Two wrongs don’t make a right and An Eye For An Eye isn’t the best road to take.

Kate – As I have said countless times before, my website is simply a personal project – I am not a professional and never intend to be one. I get it. We all do. So it’s about time when the self proclaimed “reviewers” stopped trying to leach off my traffic by posting lies and unnecessary attacks.

No one has reviewed you so please find another term. Leaching off your traffic? Since when did Dicle force you to link her? Will you link me and post an indignant blog in response to this? I’ll be sure to monitor exactly how many hits I get from you.

copyright, design, theft

I feel so bad for missing out all the drama :(

#1 Malin Oct 18, 11:24 Permalink

It really was top notch drama.

#2 Mike Haddad Oct 18, 21:18 Permalink

I love that she acts so bloody indignant when people “drag out” the copyrighted images argument. Someone should inform her that the easiest way to stop people from bringing up your inappropriate actions is to STOP FUCKING DOING IT.

#3 Jacky Oct 18, 22:46 Permalink

Ah, that was rather entertaining e-drama. I noticed that the only one of those sites that remained mature was Heather of at0mica.net. Was interesting to hear your take on the situation. :)

@Jacky: I completely agree with your statement.

#4 kim Oct 19, 01:49 Permalink

I don’t understand how Dolbananamagazine(?) learned about my “little” blog entry but I’m glad you did. I know I sound like an asslicker but your support means a lot to me.

They are never ever going to change… In fact, it was dumago.nl who firstly linked to me. I think everyone else learned the matter this way. My first blogs received 2-6 comments,but this one has 103 so far and they still think they do harm to me. Eh, clever people, aren’t they?

#5 Dicle Oct 19, 09:14 Permalink

You entry title makes me recall something Jem posted a while ago, about this ‘girl’ Kate:

I did not realise that owning a domain gave me the legal right to do and say as I please. I think I’m going to use the fact that I own two domains as an excuse to chop the arms off the obviously blind teenage chav-mum who rammed my ankles with her fake Burberry™ pushchair/buggy while I was out shopping with my sister earlier. Serves her right, damnit.

Funny

#6 Nano Oct 19, 20:52 Permalink

You are completely right. I absolutely agree with you. But apart from that, people have the right to express their opinions about something so I don’t understand why they are so immature about it. By the way, in your blog entry, it says “abblative” which, I think, should be babblative? It’s in this sentence:

Nano: Before abblative I owned valcha.net

p.

#7 Nanda Oct 20, 02:29 Permalink

I have read something about Kate on swim-chick.net about her copying & people comparing their sites. Her site never fancied me so I never paid it much mind. I was reading through some of the links you posted & I hate when people bring age into account. I know some 17 year olds more mature than people 20 & above. Its pretty pathetic when people have nothing to back up their argument so pointless & irrelevant information is brought in to back up their point. But I do think, when you get a domain, it is your property. You are allowed to say what you feel to an extent. I feel the second you say something that can cause harm, it is not right. Ok this comment is a bunch of babbling, so I’m ending it here.

#8 Alyssa Oct 20, 08:24 Permalink

So if I’m not a professional killer, is it ok to kill a couple of people?

#9 Eirene Oct 20, 12:28 Permalink

Alyssa: So if I’m not a professional killer, is it ok to kill a couple of people?

That is a good point! By what they say, yes, you can.

#10 Dicle Oct 20, 12:49 Permalink

Oh, lord. This is pathetic! And no, I’m not saying that you and Kate are pathetic, but the drama. Can one not have a website without being blogged about? If you suspect someone of stealing something, then simply e-mail them, do not make it public. Making the situation public creates so much drama, and I’m completely sick and tired of it all.

Also, just because you’ve had your site one year doesn’t mean anything. One year is not long, at all. And my God! These few sites I’ve been to are all about how long they’ve had their sites. Why does it matter how long someone has had their site? Are you saying, since you’re more “experienced” because you’ve been web-designing since 2001, that you have more of a “right” to do whatever you please? Yes, it’s your site. You can blog about what you’d like. But seriously, what’s the point of starting e-drama with someone over the INTERNET?

Saying that Kate is wrong is simply your opinion in this case. Also, you can’t just go around saying she stole tutorials from other sites! I mean, seriously! When two people, who don’t know each other AT ALL, decide they want to write a tutorial about, um…downloading a brush for PSP8, I’ll bet that 75% of what was written in the tutorial will be the same thing! So, basically, you can’t really just assume someone stole a tutorial because it’s like someone else’s tutorial. I’m sure I could easily accuse you of stealing someone’s tutorials. You may not have actually stole them, but… 75% of the tutorial is the same as some other tutorial.

Also, when you quoted Kate and said “No one has reviewed you so please find another term.” If you didn’t notice, she said “reviewers.” Technically, or at least in my opinion, the follow two sentences don’t mean the same:

“So it’s about time when the self proclaimed “reviewers” stopped trying to leach off my traffic by posting lies and unnecessary attacks.”

“So it’s about time when the self proclaimed reviewers stopped trying to leach off my traffic by posting lies and unnecessary attacks.”

This is the longest comment I’ve probably ever posted. Is it necessary? Probably not. :)

#11 Katlyn Oct 20, 13:39 Permalink

Katlyn: Oh, lord. This is pathetic! And no, I’m not saying that you and Kate are pathetic, but the drama. Can one not have a website without being blogged about? If you suspect someone of stealing something, then simply e-mail them, do not make it public. Making the situation public creates so much drama, and I’m completely sick and tired of it all.

Then I would highly recommend that you ignore it because as the song goes “I’m lovin’ it.” I could email the owner of dumbana and tell them why I think that they’re wrong, chances are very good that they’ll ignore me and I won’t get anything for my effort. At least with this approach I can hope that someone who has a similar mindset stumbles across this and learns something. Plus it’s just fun.

Katlyn: Also, just because you’ve had your site one year doesn’t mean anything. One year is not long, at all. And my God! These few sites I’ve been to are all about how long they’ve had their sites. Why does it matter how long someone has had their site? Are you saying, since you’re more “experienced” because you’ve been web-designing since 2001, that you have more of a “right” to do whatever you please? Yes, it’s your site. You can blog about what you’d like. But seriously, what’s the point of starting e-drama with someone over the INTERNET?

If you had bothered to read the whole thing, including dumbana’s quotes, then you’d know that the age thing was not brought up by me. <quote>Dolbana.com – Most sites harrassing her are young underground sites that don’t have much experience.</quote> I commented on that with my age, not because I believe that it matters, but rather to refute the claim that age does truly matter (by agreeing with Dicle).

What’s the point? It’s entertaining. There is no other point.

Katlyn: Saying that Kate is wrong is simply your opinion in this case. Also, you can’t just go around saying she stole tutorials from other sites! I mean, seriously! When two people, who don’t know each other AT ALL, decide they want to write a tutorial about, um…downloading a brush for PSP8, I’ll bet that 75% of what was written in the tutorial will be the same thing! So, basically, you can’t really just assume someone stole a tutorial because it’s like someone else’s tutorial. I’m sure I could easily accuse you of stealing someone’s tutorials. You may not have actually stole them, but… 75% of the tutorial is the same as some other tutorial.

I believe that Kate has copied other sites with similar tutorials, stealing? Perhaps not, blatantly copying other people? Yes. She’s talentless so she has to do something to look like she’s giving something back in return for her comments, so she copies and rips until it looks like she’s got something. This goes for every person with the same tutorials.

Katlyn: Also, when you quoted Kate and said “No one has reviewed you so please find another term.” If you didn’t notice, she said “reviewers.” Technically, or at least in my opinion, the follow two sentences don’t mean the same:

I will concede that to you. It’s not the first time the term reviewers has been thrown around.

I can see why you’re so bent out of shape about this, you have the same tutorial on your website and you want to feel like your content is worth something. It’s not. Stop padding your content out with crap you can find everywhere and make something that at least seems original and perhaps you’ll have a leg to stand on. As it is everyone who has this sort of stuff on their site is just grasping at straws and not even trying. That is what is truly pathetic.

#12 Becky Oct 20, 14:09 Permalink

This comment is a little late, but posting all the same…

Yes, Kate is wrong about copyright infringement, but I really think dicle’s post was wrong – it’s rude and condescending, and none of these webmiasters will ever take someone’s (so-called) advice about copyright infringement if they just start attacking their websites.

Kate’s response, was, I thought, surprisingly mature – I expected it to be one of those typical “bee-yatch, ur site is uglee, hehe, stupid ho”-type responses, but I think she handled the criticism quite well considering.

Thank YOU, Becky, for a much more mature post (I’m not being sarcastic, even if it sounds like I am) pointing out why outspoken-kate infringes copyright. dicle’s “i’m better than YOU” attitude reallt got on my nerves, even though I normally like reading her posts.

#13 Angela Oct 29, 07:40 Permalink

To be the devil’s advocate, I will have to disagree with you there.
Not only was Dicle’s grammar and spelling usage unsuitable for someone over the age of four, but her knowledge in coding likely did not exceed that of Kate’s.
It shames me to confess that I will never regain the five minutes of my life it took to read her blog.

#14 Zoe Oct 30, 12:03 Permalink

Comments are closed on this post (and most other older posts). If you'd still like to discuss this then please feel free to drop me a line using the contact form below.

Contact






|