I'm happy to clear this up for you, BB28, because it seems that one of the members here has been trying to create an Internet controversy over the further publication of the excellent points raised in your post.
I paraphrased your observations into a more news oriented story and sent it to as many casino managers as I could think of, because the content, although certainly not new, is critically important and needs to be issued as a reminder to operators as frequently as possible.
This is the email I sent to one of the webmasters that BingoT has been badgering over this:
"As far as I am concerned the article explains that it is based on a post by a player using a handle on a forum, and because it is not a direct re-print (I paraphrased a fair amount to give it a news flavour) I did not link it back to the original.
"The points it makes are all well known, but are absolutely essential and bear repeating frequently to remind operators of what the players are entitled to expect - this is why I transformed the post into a news story despite having carried similar material on different occasions over the years we have been in operation.
"Certainly there was no intention to "steal" BB28's relevant and important observations in her post, which we freely acknowledge.
"Rather it was a case of seizing on another opportunity to push these important requirements in front of the operators once again."
This really raises some interesting questions.
Some facts are known:
CasinoMeister owns all content on the forum.
BB28 didn't claim copyrights.
JetSet attributed the core of the story to a poster on a message board; though he didn't 'name' her - he also didn't claim they were original ideas.
The original poster felt sleighted by the use of her ideas.
Another poster raised the issue with webmasters carrying commercial content from InfoPowa 'created' by JetSet.
The questions it raises for me are:
Is this how stories are usually created for InfoPowa, and does it matter?
Does Jetset own his revision, or does infopowa?
Was infopowa paid, per subscription, for this piece?
Why has the issue gone mute with JetSet's disclosure?
I'm personally struggling with the ethics question. I can see the legal aspects and fair use aspects on one side, and I can feel for the OP as well. The legal side is pretty clear - Bryan has claimed copyright to all material posted here and it is agreed to when we sign up. If he doesn't have an issue with an associate harvesting content, copyright is a moot point. Fair use can be a sticky wicket; but only applies to copyrighted materials, so it is moot as well.
Can motive be argued, and if so does it have any weight? I don't think so.
Per Jetsets statement "Certainly there was no intention to "steal" BB28's relevant and important observations in her post, which we freely acknowledge." I may misunderstand that convoluted sentence - what is freely acknowledged? Certainly not the source, be it BB28 or this forum. It was acknowledged only that the original message came from a message board.
All of this could have been avoided - the OP would have been flattered rather than felt ripped-off, if JetSet would have simply taken the time to compliment her on the post, and ask her permission to use the material - maybe going so far as to let her proof the copy before publication. Who knows, it may have inspired her to write on more subjects of interest to us all.
Now that we know the chain of events and where the responsibilities lie, there is no sense in slagging subscribers to the news feed. But infopowa may want to release an update; replacing the article with one crediting the original creator as a gesture of good will.