Maybe the fundamental disagreement is what constitutes the epsilon and whether a straight "copy" is actually dishonest/bad/immoral?

In your example, say the comedian is testing the joke on a new demographic (christian vs. jewish, say), so the epsilon in this case is not just the substitution of a word in the joke but also testing the joke on a new "market".

On the one hand, I think there's a place for giving credit to the original source and even having things fall under (some limited form of) copyright. On the other hand, I also see the need for experimentation and freedom to use ideas, which aren't and shouldn't be copyrighted.

Wikipedia wasn't the only internet encyclopedia, it just happened to be the one that "won". Maybe there was a reason why Wikipedia won on merit but random chance was, no doubt, a big part in it.

Relying too heavily on the novelty of ideas prevents experimentation.

If a new comedian changed the existing 'why did the chicken cross the road?' joke to 'why did the duck cross the road?' and claimed it as a new joke they invented, then that would not be ok, in my opinion.

However, that's not really my primary issue with this article, as I've said in a couple other comments here, my issue is that 'the epsilon method' itself is not a new idea or concept. Both 'copying' and 'copying with slight differences' are already well known by everyone everywhere. So much so that there are whole bodies of law that attempt to define when its ok and when it isn't. The article is presenting this as a novel and insightful idea when it is not.

I mean, I agree somewhat but I found it interesting enough.

Note that this is also in the context of startup culture and a pushback to the 'zero-to-one' idea, so in that sense it's novelty is highly context dependent.

But you're assuming all of the content is the same, except for one small change. It's not. Only the headlines are the same. Using your analogy, it's like taking another comedian's premise for a joke -- "a priest and a rabbi walk into a bar" or something -- and creating an entirely new routine from it.

The headline was the key interesting thing that drew people in, and the interesting bit of that was the '$subject$-Porn' bit, which he copied, blatantly in my opinion.

Also, although blatant copying in the writing/art/music is bad, in business it can be fine. If someone in my local area decided to open up a coffee shop or auto repair garage that were basically copies of other like businesses elsewhere, that would be fine; the 'epsilon' being they use a different name and branding. If that's the advice, its fine advice. What rubs me the wrong way is that it seems that the article is advising blatant copying but in giving it a cover to seem like its not. If the advice is to copy other successful businesses, then just say that. This doesn't need to be given a fancy name like 'the epsilon method' as if its some new innovative concept. Copying (with slight differences) is not a new idea. People know about copying already.

Yes, but 'the epsilon method' is a different name and branding ;).

It is that. Perhaps I should just embrace this. I could write an article about my new original idea called 'the epsilon approach' which heavily uses the premise of the epsilon method, but with slightly different presentation.

so meta