She didn't. She gave credit for all the articles she used. All she did was use them without permission.
Her stance towards the author who complained, though ('you should be grateful we didn't just take it and put someone else's name on it'), shows that such a thing wouldn't have been beneath her.
Well, it might have been, but with such cavalier attitude, who would believe her? Way to ruin your own reputation...
As someone who systematically reposts other people's articles - with full credit - on a (non-commercial) blog, I've found there's some
gradation in the cases of copyright infringement. I've had writers leave me comments thanking me for the extra exposure; in only one case have I been asked to take down an article because the rights belonged to the publisher, not the author (she expressly said that if it were up to her, she'd have been fine with it). The big beef in the case we're looking at here is that the Briggs woman was making money - perhaps not much, but it was still a commercial publication - out of the stuff she yoinked from other people's sites.