Now he has stolen from a fellow blogger (Le Cav at YAYsports.com) by publishing an entire article for ESPN.com personifying the new NBA ball and naming it "Orange Roundie" (a character created by YAY).
He (or his editors) presumably tried to cover their asses by including the following:
A Web site gave me a nickname. They call me the Orange Roundie. That's what I learned to do on my downtime, between practices and games. On Oct. 23 they called me a winner. But before that …
Deadspin has been on top of this from the beginning, and elicited this response from "Scoop":
"I actually thought I was giving them some love, even though ESPN edited out the part about them being the ball's favorite site. Just trying to have some fun. Hope you enjoyed the piece; tell YAY I thought their overall ball coverage was brilliant. The ball, on the other hand, had a few issues."
But while his explanations may suggest that he's "showing some love," he has essentially hijacked a humorous idea and made it his own. Initially he did so without even providing a link or mentioning the name of YAYsports (as the outrage spread earlier this morning, "(Yaysports.com)" was inserted into the article -- with no direct link).
If the entire concept that you wish to build upon is someone else's creation, doesn't the ethics of literature and journalism require permissions be obtained?
Just further proof that the blogs are more the source of interesting sports content than ever before, and E-S-P-N is still a four letter word.
Also on Detroit Bad Boys:
Does mainstream media steal from blogs?