As for writing, wordflood? Instant Article Wizard is better, or an online writer can do a similar job for free. The best method is to get people to do it for you usually Indian or South American where you can get a uni grad for a few pounds. There are also companies that deal with that side of content generation for you.

What you’re describing, and what I’m complaining about, is “close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author”, IMHO.

Therefore, plagiarism. Q.E.D.

Your point is well taken, and our mini-debate may have devolved to violent agreement for the most part. I am glad to see you say you wouldn’t opt for the last option – I think it could be clearer in the article that what you’re describing is probably not a good way to make money or find long-term or more challenging work.

“1. the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work.”

As you point out in your last paragraph, the last example that I provided is legal – therefore it is authorized and it isn’t plagiarism. Is it ethical? That’s for you to decide.

This is a legal option for folks who have the need to do so. I wouldn’t opt for the last option myself because I can write faster than I could use the software to modify the article – but other people aren’t that fortunate, and so every legal option is placed on the table for readers to pick and choose from. Because the option is *authorized* by the original author, it isn’t plagiarism.

My dictionary defines plagiarism as “close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work”.

I have no problem with the first two topics, since you’re talking about doing real work in an arm’s length transaction. The third topic of your article, on the other hand, is about “[r]ewriting” an ebook with the hopes of selling it and plainly states it is geared toward “the person who really doesn’t want to write an entire ebook from scratch” and shows such persons an “easy way to modify the Ebook to make it unique, otherwise you’re selling the same exact book as everyone else”. The tool you highlight “immediately identifies and highlights the phrases and words that you can modify WITHOUT SIGNIFICANTLY CHANGING THE MEANING OF THE TEXT” (emphasis mine). By doing this, “you’ll end up with a UNIQUE Ebook that you purchased dirt cheap, but which you can sell at a huge markup for huge profits, over and over for as long as you like” (emphasis mine again). Note I have directly quoted you as much as possible to minimize the possibility that I am confused.

I might not have as much of a problem with this if you were encouraging the “author” to actually add original content, or to use the licensed content in a new and unique way (which is, itself, an act of creating original content). But you’re not doing that – you flat-out state the “author” should simply go through the work, replacing this or that word with “alternative text” from a thesaurus, taking care only to make sure that the “alternative text” makes grammatical sense.

I get that it may be technically legal to do this, because after all, the new “author” has (presumably) bought and paid for a license to use the source material. But think back to your grade school and college days and see if you can remember a single teacher/professor/instructor who wouldn’t have immediately flunked you for “rewriting” someone else’s paper for credit. That’s all this is – profiting from wanton plagiarism.

If you’re going to go the information entrepreneur approach, you can consider using something like clickbank.com to sell your wares. Unfortunately they have a lot of ‘make money fast’ and ‘run your car on water’ (!) topics.

Not paying writers and selling their work will get you the worst kind of karma — and I guarantee you the work you will get from them will be worth what you’re (not) paying.