What really sticks in the craw of some is not the fact the article was a hoax, but that it was written as a parody. Since a parody has more shelf-life than a hoax, I imagine this is why it was perpetuated past what many would consider its 'due' date.
The fact some people referred to it in their own writings, etc.. I think, speaks to the quality of the original piece and inadvertently shone some light on people who are not giving GCA the proper credit for the knowledge contained herein.
Given Ran's passing references to copyright law, it would not surprise me if that was part of his intentions when he decided to run the piece. I'm not an attorney, but since there seems to be no assignment of copyright for contributing to GCA.com it would be hard for him take action based on the appropriation of someone else's writings. Not that he doesn't have a million other things to do.
I wonder if the people who the ruse was targeted at feel appropriately shamed?