I would call it reprinting and selling. Copying. There's not necessarily anything wrong with that. In fact some use it as a means to get publicity for their art. That would for the most part actually be a good thing for me most likely, as long as I also had supporters funding me separately.

That's not to say that funding and staying afloat can't be made a lot more difficult by copiers under certain circumstances, or that a writer should not be allowed to engage in copyrighting agreements with his customers or consumers. But this would have to look a whole lot different than what is currently going on. The issue I see with modern copyright law is when the state enters the picture and it's no longer two people making a voluntary arrangement.

All of this aside, I'm only endorsing small size or very clearly stated copying of the material of others. Nothing that would end up harming or even going against the wishes of the creator if they were to make them explicit.

It has to add value to the Steem platform and not simply be mooching of the producers of the content. @zer0hedge is a good example of someone fitting into the former category and not the latter.

At least I would highly doubt that he ever cost them money, attention or respect. My own visits to their site have increased since he started posting.