ok, i get that theft of any kind is wrong and that if money is involved it's meaningful, but in this particular case if ESPN was going to report this story, ( and of course they were) then what difference does it really make if they use these exact words instead of just changing the words around a bit.
I mean, how many different ways are there to say DH is still demanding a trade? If you're reporting the exact same facts that somebody else just did then isn't exact word choice kind of irrelevant?
I think the guy from Real GM should be acknowledged as the source, but otherwise this seems kind of silly.
This is not silly since ESPN monetizes their web traffic through add revenue. If they were to properly cite their sources, those cites could get more traffic and better monetize their efforts. This could mean less traffic for ESPN as people go to the other site first for news.
In other words, but stealing the content of other sites, they are essentially stealing revenue.
