Plagiarism and copyright infringement have always been a problem for writers all over the world. The Internet only made it easier, and more profitable. Unfortunately, Blogspot and Google are not only aware of this problem, they seem to be throwing obstacles in the path of those who seek justice. Why can't they think about protecting the real authors, instead of their bloggers? Where's the corporate responsibility and leadership we have come to expect from Google? Here's a quote from the editorial :- Link : ED#48 : Blogspot/Google Should NOT Protect Copyright Thieves
I'm not terribly interested in posting this story on our site's front page news section, but an additional idea that will indeed "get the word out" about this sort of thing is to have something like a "Hall of Shame" on your site where you can post URLs and screenshots of sites that blatantly plagiarize your articles (and refuse to respond to a gentle nudge). Use Google against them, to get the word out that they (the invididuals doing it) are vermin. I'm sure that this site is well spidered by the search engines and I'd expect you to get much higher ranking than those buttsucks. Have some text in the posting that's relevant to the content that's being plagiarized. Make the pasted URLs to the plagiarists non-hyperlinks so they won't be followed. (don't want to increase their ranking). Have hyperlinks to your own articles. A subforum set up like this one would do the trick, where users can't post their own threads but can comment on your postings, which would add to the shame. Members are defensive of their forum homes, too
there IS a good reason Google's system is necessary. the DMCA as it currently is written allows for any person to file a copyright infringement complaint directly with an ISP (and with "service providers" like YouTube, ImageShack, Flickr, et al) without the need to go to the courts first. in order for the ISP or service provider to thus comply with the DMCA, the offending material is immediately taken offline prior to an investigation into whether or not the material removed was actually infringing on someone's copyright. this is grossly unfair. there is no due process involved until after the content in question is removed. you don't even need to provide proof that the material is infringing; you only need to claim it is infringing. a malicious person could use this to essentially carry out denial-of-service attacks against specific targets. the high standard Google seems to have set here attempts to strike a balance between protecting copyright holders' rights AS WELL AS bloggers' rights. i'm not saying that Google should provide safe-harbor to copyright infringers. but i AM saying that what you view as an onerous system to report copyright infringement is in actuality a compromise to prevent blatant DMCA abuse.
Hmm.. That's an interesting idea alright. However, I'm pretty sure the page will be quite long as there are so many sploggers and they just keep generating new splogs. Here's a recent article on sploggers and Google/Blogspot in particular - http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2123675,00.html
I don't agree with the system of taking reported sites offline before a review is done. And I do not believe anyone is actually doing that. I believe what most ISPs and websites have been doing is quickly checking the allegations to see if they are even valid. It's really not that difficult to distinguish between a splogger and a genuine content provider. Only in certain cases of plagiarism where only excepts are copied do they really require in-depth inspection. For most of these splogs, they just copy the articles wholesale. Some don't even bother linking back to the original website. A quick look is all it takes to determine if a particular blog is genuine, or just another splog. Also, if you take a look at this recent investigation of splogs and Google (http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,,2123675,00.html), you will see that Google is quite alone in the way they do things. Other blog hosts do not require such a convoluted system and they do a far better job of preventing copyright abuses. IMHO, Google has vested interests in NOT punishing sploggers. Sploggers generate a lot of traffic and ad revenue. Many of these splogs generate far more traffic and ad revenue than even long-time websites like ours. Is that fair? I think not. But to Google, it's all the same. Anyone generating traffic and revenue will merely mean more revenue for Google. That's really quite unfortunate and disappointing. I have always been impressed by Google, a company started up by only two guys to become the giant it is in mere years. Yet, they have failed to show the kind of leadership I expected from visionaries.
Michael Crook, Viacom, and others apparently disagree. in all of these cases, the DMCA was used abusively. peoples' websites were shut down. if i was an unscrupulous fellow, i could easily contact your ISP to report your site as infringing on my copyrights, and your ISP would shut you down first. but they're not doing the "quick look" before removing the content. they're simply removing the content up front and then dealing with any disputes after the fact. Google's system appears to be an attempt to raise the bar somewhat while still helping copyright holders and complying with the law. just because they're the only ones doing it doesn't equate to Google's practices being wrong. i would say only a small portion of these bloggers attract a significant enough amount of traffic to make actual ad revenues for google. but we're not talking about revenue here, we're talking about the DMCA. and it is not in Google's interests either to be known as a supporter of copyright violations, especially not now. abuse of the DMCA is real and has happened already on numerous occasions. the DMCA as it is currently on the books is horribly flawed. Google's system of requiring fax or snail mail submissions seems to be the only way to mitigate what would otherwise be an easily abusable takedown system. and requiring that you are absolutely sure that you are in the right is also another protection in this regard.
IMHO, this isn't so much about a discussion about DMCA. But the fact that there are people out that they plagarise articles for their own gain.
Actually, we have contacted several websites and ISPs in the past regarding stolen materials. In none of the cases have the offending websites been shut down before the offending parties were given a chance to respond. However, they did respond quickly because they knew their ISPs would not tolerate such matters. So, when it comes to Google, I think they can do something better than that. If ISPs and other blog hosts can handle the splogs without disturbing genuine content providers, why can't Google? IMHO, removing the offending content is a good compromise to taking the whole site offline, if the dispute cannot be resolved quickly. In fact, that's what we voluntarily did some time ago when another website informed us that they felt we were copying their content. Hmm.. No, Google isn't being wrong as far as the letter of the law is concerned. However, it's obvious that they are trying to avoid the spirit of the law. If they are genuine about cracking down on copying and plagiarism, they can easily close accounts of offenders. Why wait until others show evidence of repeated offences? And how many offences are we talking about? Okay, let's say the use of snail mail or fax is the "ONLY" way to avoid DCMA abuses. Why the policy of not immediately suspending the account of bloggers who have been proven to spam/copy/plagiarize? Why is there not a policy of filtering out repeat offenders and preventing them from re-registering a new account again and again? Or how about penalizing these sploggers by closing down their AdSense account if they persist? After all, those are ill-gotten gains. Would the police allow you to keep the money you stole, even if you spend a full term in jail? I think not. The point is Google is the only blog hosting company that has the power to effect real changes in the way sploggers operate. If they hammer the nail in, splogging will die a natural death. It's a relatively recent phenomena fueled by an obvious (possibly intentional) lack of enforcement... and AdSense. Just FYI, in the past, you will be hard-pressed to find an ad agency that will sign you up as a publisher without a solid readership and a thorough vetting. Now, EVERYONE can sign up for an AdSense account and make money.
Thanks for the link about sploggers. I tend to agree that Google isn't the most ethical of services anymore and I dislike those "Adsense" text ads because they often lead to questionable products and services that I wouldn't want to expose readers to. One other site I work at uses Adsense and I can't tell you how embarassing it is to have to tell people that "we don't endorse or recommend those links" when someone has downloaded a fake security utility or something. We have no way of even knowing what visitors are seeing. If it was up to me (it's not) they would be gone. As mentioned in this thread, not only are they giving adsense accounts to just anyone these days but it seems that any scammer can pay to advertise in that system. So Google's motto of "do no harm" is really tarnished by hypocrisy these days. But to be fair, some of Yahoo's text ads are even sleazier.
I agree that this adsense issue goes both ways, scamming sploggers as well as scamming spamertisers. There just have to be an effective way to socially remove all these scams. What irks me is that some of the ads are actually ads to sites that publishes yet even more adsense ads on a 'splogged' site. Nothing is more scamming than that!
Although I think Google's AdSense is an innovative advertising medium and opens up new possibilities for the masses, they really need to cut down on sploggers. I think AdSense can do very well even without sploggers to artificially generate those clicks. It would be better for Google in the long run to improve and maintain a high level of integrity (by denying sploggers access to AdSense) than trying to eke as much money as possible now. If there's a high level of trust, I think more companies will advertise online and there will be more revenue for anyone and everyone who produce good material online, instead of rewarding the crooks.
