Guest Post: Why Mixing Content is a Bad Idea

For today’s post, I’d like to turn my blog over to Jonathan Bailey, a copyright and plagiarism consultant and CEO of CopyByte. Be sure to read is bio after the post below.

In the music or video world, remixing can often be a very good thing. People take short samples of music or short clips of videos and create entirely new works of incredible creativity.

However, creating a proper remix takes a great deal of talent and effort. It is more than simply a process of splicing together various elements, it involves the creation of a brand new work using pieces from others that usually offers commentary or adds to the original works.

Unfortunately though, some have tried to use a form of remixing as a shortcut to creating content for their site. This usually involves copying and pasting various passages of content from various sources and stringing them together to create a new work that is meant to replace the original, not expand upon it.

This practice, often called “splicing”, is a form of plagiarism that is not only unethical, but also is illegal and, frankly stupid.

If you are are considering engaging in this kind of behavior here are a few good reasons to avoid it.

Copyright Law and Splicing

Legally speaking, most well-done remixes are viewed as safe because they rely on fair use, which allows artists, reviewers and others to use small portions of content for the creation of new works and for the purpose of commentary and criticism.

The problem with fair use is that there are no hard and fast rules as to what is and is not a fair use. The law was written to be flexible and each case is handled on an individual basis. However, the four factors used by courts to determine fair use are as follow:

    1. the purpose and character of your use
    2. the nature of the copyrighted work
    3. the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
    4. the effect of the use upon the potential market.

Factors one and four are the most important and it is easy to see why splicing is very likely to run afoul of the law. Since the intent of the use is to create a replacement for the work and not a wholly new one, that hurts splicing seriously on both the character of the use, which looks to see how transformative the use is, and the effect on the potential market.

So, for example, using snippets from various articles to create a new work, is likely to be considered an infringement. Copyright holders who have had their content used in this manner are free to file DMCA takedown notices and, in extreme cases, file a lawsuit against the person doing the splicing.

How Search Engines See It

Search engines crave original content and value it very highly. Sites that prominently feature original works are ranked highly in the search engines and those that have duplicate content are pushed either way down in the rankings or, even worse, in the the supplementary index where almost no visitors see it.

The problem with splicing is that it doesn’t create original content. Since all of the content is lifted verbatim or nearly verbatim from various sources that Google already indexes, the search engine can trivially detect this and works to reduce the ranking of these pages.

Though it is difficult to tell how much content one needs to include for Google to be able to detect it as duplicate, anything over a few sentences typically is discovered and is treated as duplicate content. As such, if you splice together a story using a few lines or paragraphs at a time, Google will most likely detect it and penalize you accordingly, making the effort worthless.

Quality of Work

However, even if Google and the other search engines are fooled by the splicing effort, your human visitors most likely will not. Different articles, even from the same source, have different styles, tones and structure. Stitching them together creates a mash that doesn’t flow and seems very awkward.

Real remixes and mashups take advantage of this, using the juxtaposition to create commentary. Spliced works, on the other hand merely come across as poorly-made creations that are inconsistent and awkward.

If one wants to take the time and energy to fix this problem, they need to dedicate so much to it that it would, in most cases, have simply been easier to create a new work from scratch. However, since creating a completely unique work avoids the copyright and duplicate content issues as well, it is by far the best approach to take when trying to craft high quality content for your site.

Bottom Line

Though there is a place for legitimate remixing, using splicing as a shortcut to create content for your site is not only probably illegal, but also stupid.

Not only does it produce content that is not widely-accepted by the search engines, it also produces poorer-quality work that won’t be well-loved by human visitors. Any attempt to edit content to avoid these issues will require more work than simply writing a new piece, making the entire purpose for splicing content moot.

In the end, if this is an approach to content generation you are considering, you would be wise to abandon it and either use content legitimately, for example under a Creative Commons License, or, even better, create your own work from scratch and only quote/cite material you need to bring into it.

Doing so not only keeps other bloggers and search engines happy, but is by far the best way to build and grow your site online.

About Jonathan Bailey

Jonathan Bailey is a copyright and plagiarism consultant and the CEO of CopyByte, a consulting firm specializing in copyright on the web. You can also find him at his blog Plagiarism Today, a site dedicated to helping content creators protect their work, and stomping around the New Orleans area looking for geocaches.

5 Responses to Guest Post: Why Mixing Content is a Bad Idea
  1. Keith Anderson

    Great article. A few questions:

    Do you have examples of splicing?

    Also, can you explain splicing a little better? Are you talking about using quotes in an article you write? Or are you saying all content is pasted from other sites?

    How useful are sites like Copyscape in protecting your own content?

    Thanks for the article.

  2. Jonathan Bailey

    Keith: You see a lot of splicing in academia too. The idea is that you take several works on different topics and then copy and paste sections from each one, with minor edits, to stitch together a new work. It’s a, sadly, common practice in academia and has become more common in

    As far as an actual example, I don’t have one off hand because it can be difficult to trace a work like that back to all of its sources.

    Sometimes splicing can be done using quotes but is more often done with just verbatim plagiarism from various sources. The idea behind good quoting is to only take what you need and write the rest yourself, splicing goes well beyond.

    CopyScape can be very useful but it is not practical for content in an RSS feed that is regularly updated, I recommend FairShare (fairshare.cc) for that purpose. Definitely consider giving it a try and maybe using both systems, with Copyscape being used to check for more static content.

    Hope this helps!

  3. [...] Bad Idea By Jonathan Bailey • Apr 16th, 2010 • Category: Articles, Guest ColumnsYesterday a gu... plagiarismtoday.com/2010/04/16/why-content-splicing-is-a-bad-idea
  4. RN

    Well, here’s where I get frustrated. I have seen this practice quite frequently. And unfortunately, it is a lot easier for others to splice articles together than it is for me to write fresh quality content. So these sites grow bigger and faster than mine. They don’t outrank me at first, but eventually they obliterate my site in Google. I have had many of them removed, but I wish someone would pay me for all the time and energy I have to put into dealing with this problem. It would be nice if Google did a better job of identifying the original source to begin with. It’s aggravating that something I posted years ago is swiped, sliced, diced, and repurposed and then outranks me. It also would be nice if those folks who run Google’s ad program actually looked at the sites that they accept and reviewed them periodically. A lot of them are obviously doing this, and a lot of them skate through the process and get accepted. Sometimes they start out ok but switch tactics when they learn its more lucrative (and a lot less work) to just steal. I can’t imagine Google is not aware of this. Lord knows, I have reported many a site to them that is doing this. But they turn a blind eye to it probably because they know that we of the independent business model can’t hold them accountable for the blogs on their Blogger platform that routinely pull this crap.

  5. Monica Valentinelli

    @RN – I’ve done some testing, and Google seems to favor its own properties on Blogger/Blogspot in the search engines. However, there are other things that you can do SEO-wise to help yourself rank for terms.

    Organic content is obviously not the only way to drive traffic to a website, though. I will also say that not all organic traffic are comprised of the visitors that you want, either. This is where I think web analytics comes into play.

    Several sites survive by providing commentary on other sites. I can name over a dozen within the media and entertainment industry that quotes a particular article and puts commentary around it.

    I understand your concerns about splicing; I’ve even caught quite a few instances where Wikipedia content was copied/pasted from a site.

    Depending upon what your goal is for your content, you might want to put together a paid e-book version that provides enhanced content for your readers.



Monica Valentinelli is a writer, editor, and game developer. Her portfolio includes stories, games, comics, essays, and pop culture books.

In addition to her own worlds, she has worked on a number of different properties including Firefly, Vampire: the Masquerade, Shadowrun, Hunter: the Vigil, Brandon Sanderson’s Mistborn, and Robert E. Howard’s Conan.

Looking for Monica’s books and games that are still in print? Visit Monica Valentinelli on Amazon’s Author Central or a bookstore and game store near you.

Want to Interview or Hire Me? Send Fan Mail?

Would you like to hire me? Because my projects and manuscripts are in flux, I am always open to discussing new opportunities with publishers and studios. As a full-time writer, I spend a portion of my time seeking new gigs–so don’t be afraid to reach out. If you’re interested, please e-mail me via my Contact Page. I typically reply to work-related e-mails within one-to-two business days.

Want an interview? If you’d like to interview me or request a guest blog post, please connect with me via the contact page, too. Due to time constraints and other communicative concerns, I typically don’t follow up on requests via social media.

Keen on sending fan mail? I am also happy to engage with readers and fans. Please note that I am unable to reply satisfactorily to certain types of queries related to the companies I work for due to the agreements I typically sign. If you have a question about a TV show or a line of books, the best way to get your answer is to contact the studio or publisher directly.

Back to Top