Private Label Rights (PLR) articles can be found on the Internet. Sites will offer them either with or without proposed alternative wordings so you can "personalize" it to make it look like you wrote it yourself. It's cheating and it doesn't really accomplish its intended purpose.
I recently spotted an article which looked odd. It was a rather long article on a fairly technical subject supposedly written by a young woman. Now, I'm sure there are women interested in technical subjects. I believe it would be nice if there were more of them. But something about this article just didn't ring true.
First of all, it had all the personality of a government form letter. Second, overall it just wasn't very well written. Then I spotted a use of the word "naked" which was wildly out of context. The proper word would have been "bear," as in "to bear a resemblance." Now I knew something wasn't right.
There's an easy way to spot plagiarism. Copy a sentence or two from the suspect article and paste it into a search engine like Google. See what comes up. Sometimes you'll get the exact same sentence showing up in another article elsewhere on the Internet.
When I did it for the unusual article, the first result was the article itself, but the second one was from a site called Spintax. Spintax is a PLR site that offers "10,000's Of Free Spintax (Spin Syntax) Private Label Rights Articles." Notice the odd wording "10,000's Of Free..." It made me wonder if the creator of the site speaks English as a first language, a feeling that was reinforced by trying to read the article.
The article I pulled up is hard to read because it offers several word choices for almost every phrase, so a one-line finished sentence might take up three or four lines. I found where the word "naked" had been chosen by the plagiarizer and understood why it was used. The choices were "bare" or "naked." Obviously the person who created the PLR doesn't know the difference between "bear" and "bare." Then the plagiarizer compounded the error by choosing "naked."
It is a bit of work to go through a fairly long PLR article making all those choices, but if someone's in it only for the quick bucks, it is faster than researching an article and writing one's own words. The user of PLR articles really doesn't even have to know much about the subject beyond thinking perhaps it'll get some views.
In the end, I doubted that the plagiarizer is anything he or she claims to be. I doubt the age, the gender, where the person lives (the claim was a very generic "United States of America"), or if English is the person's native language. I had no doubt that the person does not respect Bubblews or its members. Quick bucks seems to be all the person is interested in.
Plagiarism is against Bubblews' Terms of Service. Using PLR articles is plagiarism. It's really that simple. If I could use a search engine to find the source of the plagiarized article, certainly Bubblews people or their software can do it as well.