| 1:06 am on Apr 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I wrote to the thief of one of my articles a couple of weeks ago. My seriously worded email was enough for him to take it down within hours. Failing that, many sites that start out by ripping off other people's work soon realise they're getting nowhere, give up, and their site (with the copy of you work) vanishes into the ether. Failing that, take them and/or their host to court. At least one of these options will work, provided the original really is yours.
| 5:51 am on Apr 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I do not write e-mails to website owners anymore. Just file a DMCA to Google and they'll remove them in a few weeks.
| 9:14 am on Apr 9, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Go get 'em, onlineConnect.
Send the site a message informing them of the infringement. State clearly that copyright is yours. Ask that the article be taken down. Advise that if it is not removed within 48 hours you will pursue other means including the use of a DMCA submission to search engines. Advise that you will also, if necessary, contact the site's hosting company and seek for the specific page to be taken down.
Don't stand back and let people steal your unique content.
| 12:08 am on Apr 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I have tried to defend copyright in the past. It resulted in me loosing my job, my home, my living.
The article was wrote for a job I lost as a direct result of a site beeing ripped off. So I won't defend it. Neither would I want to launch a dmca which would result in my email published for ridicule on Chilling Effects.
Nah its just easier to get #*$!ed over and not complain about it on the internet now.......
| 11:29 am on Apr 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I read somewhere that you shouldn't worry about beeing copied, you should worry when you stop beeing copied
I am just going to put this one down to experience but thanks for suggestions
| 7:03 pm on Apr 10, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I'm really not trying to change your mind or make light of your specific situation, but IMO people taking the easy way and not doing anything is why the Internet is in the state it is... People do not defend their rights, so whatever goes, regardless of the law.
You do not need to contact the site with the content on it and have an angry site owner post anything about you, because it's a courtesy to contact the site owner first rather than the host directly. If I did not feel comfortable contacting the site owner with a DMCA complaint, then personally, I would contact the host and CC an attorney...
It really does not, in my experience, take very much cash to retain an attorney to CC with complaints (or information) if you do the work to create and send the DMCA removal request and only retain them for the ability to copy information to. It also make it easy for you to turn over the situation to them if anything is not addressed or if there is a 'backlash' from the other party. IMO It also lends some credibility to your complaint. (Shop around a bit if you decide to and my guess is you'll find one you can CC without paying too high a retainer for, because it takes basically none of their time to receive and file an e-mail, plus they get a solid prospect for future work.)
If everyone takes the 'it's safer to keep quiet' perspective when they're right then there's no end to the infringement. Hopefully some future readers will take a different stance and the status quo will change, because right now, IMO, it's out of control.
| 2:49 am on Apr 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I understand what your saying Mad Scientist but I honestly am happy for the article to be republished. What I am annoyed about is someone else saying they wrote it. I think thats wrong.
I have lived long enough in a world determined by copyright and to be honest I think we've paid for stuff we should get for free for far too long. I want to see a worldwide free ride, I think we have all earned it, so thats why I choose not to have the article taken down.
I just want people not to claim credit for something they haven't written but am happy even flattered if an article I write is reused.
Maybe it would be a better world if copyright didn't exist.
| 3:21 am on Apr 11, 2010 (gmt 0)|
And, maybe the world would be even better if people simply respected the work of others and we didn't need copyright protection because those who like the content provide a link and reference stating what a great article it is, giving credit where credit is due. Links are free too...
Why would anyone need to reproduce content on the Internet when links and recommendations can be freely provided so everyone would have the same opportunity to access and read the information as they do by reproduction, but the credit would go to where it is due?
IMO There's no need to reproduce someone else's work to have freedom of information on the Internet and it's done out of greed and lack of respect for others, because links and references to the original source are totally free.
| 11:20 am on Apr 12, 2010 (gmt 0)|
@OnlineConnect, agree completely, you cannot really steal content (as Jefferson said), but you can steal credit, and that can really harm the victim.
That said, as TheMadScientist said, why do you need to copy when you can link?
| 12:28 pm on Apr 12, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|IMO There's no need to reproduce someone else's work to have freedom of information on the Internet and it's done out of greed and lack of respect for others, because links and references to the original source are totally free. |
In the future when there are more subscription sites, you will see many more copy/rewrite scenarios since the option of linking won't be useful and the content will seem original since search engines won't see the paid content.
| 2:00 pm on Apr 12, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Why don't you just let the plagiarist come round to drink the beer out of your fridge, drive your car, and jump into bed with your wife... Heck, you could even let them use your shaving mirror in the morning.
Alternatively, you could protect what's yours.
| 2:14 pm on Apr 12, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I contact the website owner first, then go down the DCMA route.
| 2:37 pm on Apr 12, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Is it worth it? I wouldn't waste your time unless of course the ripped off version is getting visibility.
If the copy has a link back to your site, you could always do a little HTTP_REFERER Jacking and send visitors referred by that link a special message.
Other than that, if you have popular articles, they are going to be scraped and regurgitated by a plethora of bottom feeding scraper sites.
You can be proactive in your approach and perform a little lockdown on your site but for the most part, someone will ALWAYS find a copy to copy. You can block certain countries from accessing your site, there are a handful who are responsible for the bulk of the scraping.
I also think that scrapers use SE cache in ways that are not discussed much around here. Just my own personal tin foil hat theory. ;) So, we NoArchive everything out of the box and block Internet Archive.
The SEs seem to do a pretty good job of determining where the original document resides, that one will typically trump all the others. But, if you get a site that has the juice, it could interfere with your document's performance.
Nah, I wouldn't bother with 99% of them. Most are going to get filtered anyway. Many are just rotting MFA corpses, relegated to the Internet graveyard.
| 1:13 am on Apr 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I be honest I been way beyond what your doing, but html is html at the end of the day its free to view. Thats what the web serves.
I appreciate what you say but it isnt worth trying to protect web content.
| 3:42 am on Apr 14, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Nah, I wouldn't bother with 99% of them. Most are going to get filtered anyway. Many are just rotting MFA corpses, relegated to the Internet graveyard. |
I agree. Most of them aren't worth your time as their scraped stuff usually doesn't rank for anything anyway. I'd only take action if it were a site that was causing me a loss of income and even then sometimes it is simply easier to just change my page to prevent duplicates.
If you have popular sites and syndicated articles with millions of page views a month they are going to get copied, scraped and have pages posted in forums. You could make a full time career out of filling out DMCA requests, but I'm not sure how much money there is in that as opposed to just tasks like adding content and marketing your sites.
| 2:19 pm on Apr 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Don't waste your time writing to website owner, go DMCA if you want, anyway it is just "duplicate content" and I don't think duplicate article will bring much benefits to website owner.
| 10:40 pm on Apr 18, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Likely your article is worthless junk to begin with and not worth defending. I advice getting drunk as you mentioned and then getting drunk again. After that do the same. Junk is not worth defending or bothering anybody with.
| 1:11 am on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
How would those of you who advocate ignoring plagiarizers deal with someone using your text to sell the same product you sell (I usually write at least a screen's worth per product, so it's not just a couple sentences)? Would you go after them then? Sometimes even with the same pictures that you took? Personally, I go after such people periodically, but it's always depressing (because people lie and blame everyone else) and boring and aggravating, so to me it is somewhat attractive NOT to go after them. But I am not sure if that's a good business decision or just an emotional one ("I dohn wanna").
The other thing I was wondering re whether it is a waste of time to go after plagiarizers is what happens when you move to another server? If Google theoretically recognizes you as the authoritative source, does that continue when you move? I'm not talking about scrapers here. I mean people who rip off substantial portions of your site for the purpose of either selling their own products or selling the text itself.
| 5:00 am on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I mean people who rip off substantial portions of your site for the purpose of either selling their own products or selling the text itself. |
That is different than what has happened to me and I think what some of the other posters here are talking about. In most cases my stuff just ends up on Adsense scraper sites which in all probability get zero traffic. If a competitor with real rankings is stealing my text and pictures then I'd probably go the DMCA route.
I recently did go the DMCA route for a site I help out on because the copied stuff was outranking the real site that the material belonged to.
|The other thing I was wondering re whether it is a waste of time to go after plagiarizers is what happens when you move to another server? If Google theoretically recognizes you as the authoritative source, does that continue when you move? |
If you move to another server usually Google still recognize your material as the authoritative source. If you change domains names and have a totally new site then duplicate content could become more of an issue.
| 10:07 am on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
Okay, thanks. I'm intending on moving my main site to a new server but also shifting some of the pages to a different site.
| 7:02 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|I mean people who rip off substantial portions of your site for the purpose of either selling their own products or selling the text itself. |
I would think product descriptions are a tricky area under copyright law. Many sites use the same description. I would think you would have to show a unique difference to claim a violation.
| 7:10 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
I would be tempted to contact the site's ISP, complaining that they are publishing copyrighted material stolen from you, copy the site also and one way or another the article should be taken down quite quickly.
| 7:54 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
That said, I now find I have an impersonator ... he/she is posting responses in forums claiming to me myname at mysite.net ..
I only found him/her in the last few days.
Not sure yet what to do about it. His/her posts have been constructive as far as I can see.
It is most strange.
| 9:58 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Okay, thanks. I'm intending on moving my main site to a new server but also shifting some of the pages to a different site. |
You may want to use a 301 then to forward the pages that go to the different site so they still get credit for any existing external back links.
| 10:26 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
/offtopic (sorry, couldn't resist)
Are you sure it's not Marc_A? He might have some time on his hands [webmasterworld.com] these days.
| 11:05 pm on Apr 19, 2010 (gmt 0)|
"You may want to use a 301 then to forward the pages that go to the different site so they still get credit for any existing external back links."
| 7:03 am on Apr 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Are you sure it's not Marc_A? He might have some time on his hands |
Well my impersonator is certainly an odd one :-) I just cannot conceieve why anyone would do that!
Plus they are making cogent forum posts and linking back to my site. I wondered for a moment if I had gone mad and actually made the posts myself, but no way!
| 7:53 am on Apr 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|If Google theoretically recognizes you as the authoritative source.. |
Good luck with that now. From my personal experience Google specifically has been terrible with it. A year after publishing technical articles about an open source package I created Google had me at the first pos - searching for the name of the package (obviously since the only site had info about it, was mine and there was no download available).
After publishing the actual code/package on various open source repositories along with a brief description about it, my first pos vanished. Became 2nd then 3rd and so forth while the publishers moved up in the search engine results.
Other SEs did not do that though. Since, I had no reason to let the spider wasting my server's b/w so it got blocked.
| 8:21 pm on Apr 20, 2010 (gmt 0)|
|Well my impersonator is certainly an odd one :-) I just cannot conceieve why anyone would do that! |
People do that in an attempt to gain immediate legitimacy and take advantage of your "brand" awareness. Soon they'll have a free offer or start some kind of mailing list and people who are fans of your site will sign up thinking it is you.
They are basically scam artists. I have had it happen a couple of times that I know of. Probably a lot more times that I don't know about.
| This 33 message thread spans 2 pages: 33 (  2 ) > > |