Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Now the question and discussion.
As we all have seen, there are huge article sites that have zillions of articles from all over the web, on all topics, and google adsense and so on. Most of them mention the source and autor, without a link to either of them.
My question is : Is it allowed? Does Google find out about them? Is there a way for google to penalize such huge sites?
Is it Ethical? I guess not, but I would like to know the general opinion.
Is it wrong? I guess yes, but then why most of AdSenses try to have atleast one such section in their site?
What is google's stand over this?
i have had my content stolen in the past, and in every case, the webmaster took down the article without any delay.
These writers would be begging to use their articles to place in someone's site and put a link back to them so that they can get a high ranking in search engine.
Also it's not a violation to Google's TOS to use someone's article because i used one and i showed it to Google.
More links means high ranks.
This is no brainer complaint!
[edited by: asianguy at 1:20 pm (utc) on June 12, 2005]
Anyways, to answer your question (again), it is not ethical, it might be illegal, and Google probably doesn't care, because they're not the Internet police.
As we all have seen, there are huge article sites that have zillions of articles from all over the web, on all topics, and google adsense and so on. Most of them mention the source and autor, without a link to either of them.My question is : Is it allowed? Does Google find out about them? Is there a way for google to penalize such huge sites?
Depends. The site that stole your article was unethical and illegal. If a site doesn't steal articles, though, why should they be penalized? Information sites, article archives, and online magazines are all legitimate and useful services.
The only penalty that currently exists is for sites with a lot of reprinted content. Duplicate content gets a site pushed way down in the SERPs.
Is it wrong? I guess yes, but then why most of AdSenses try to have atleast one such section in their site?
Do you mean a section of articles? Or a section of stolen articles? Most AdSensers don't have stolen articles. We do try to have lots of original articles because that's what draws people in, and Google encourages this.
it is my understanding, that google will tolerate sites with some duplicate content, but once a certain threshhold is met, they seem to be dropped completely.
google may not know that you were the creator of that content - they may mistakenly assume that you were the copier.
there is a wikipedia mirror that was getting great traffic, but in the middle of feb (according to alexa), it completely fell off the map... i think this is when google introduced its duplicate content "penalty".
i choose to err on the side of caution, and make my sites have 100% unique content.
can you just put a link to your site in every article?
overly simplistic?
not a good idea?
won't work?
detrimental to your site and search engines in some way?
all comments appreciated
And links to your site DO NOT outweigh the damage this type of theft does to your site over time.
Think about it. Some of these ezine sites have huge pagerank. How will it affect you when the pirated article begins to outrank your own page and take away some of your potential adsense earnings?
Don't kid yourself. It's not a good thing.
The webmaster of the site in question ( articles site i mentioned ) has simply written back that some user had submitted the article, so he cant take responsibility. Indirectly he has refused to take it off and also not giving a link to my site.
On further search in his site, I found that around 8 of my articles are present there, not just one, as I noticed before...
I guess this is going a little too far, and I dont have a valid or legal way to check this. Living in different countries makes it even more dificult.
Worse, his site ( my article on his site - page ) ranks far better than mine for the specific keyword. He is #3 in google search results where as I am somewhere around #25 .
Still thinking.....
Contact his host and file a DMCA complaint with google
[webmasterworld.com...]
[webmasterworld.com...]
I am moving into action now. I think it is not a good idea to let them go free.
I have send them a stiffer email just now, with a tough language and indication that I might take stricteraction.
Also, I have included a link to this thread and the other two threads of WW mentioned above, to let them knwo what all can be done against them.
I shall post the results soon ...
If someone copied your site word for word and reproduced it to make money from it you may have a case, and even then you would have to have the resourses to take them to court.
But taking an article would be seen in the eyes of the law as Fair Use under the Copyright Law...
I can say with 100% surity that to persue this in anyway will simply waste your time, effort and sanity.
The best you can hope for is to have your name and website sited as the source with a link to divert traffic.
Contrary to what you are being told here... taking information from other sites is NOT illegal ...
If someone copied your site word for word and reproduced it to make money from it you may have a case, and even then you would have to have the resourses to take them to court.But taking an article would be seen in the eyes of the law as Fair Use under the Copyright Law...
Can implementation of AdSense ( or any other affiliate advert based program ) be counted under making money from copied content? I guess so!
Lobo, Can you give some more information on how we can draw a thin line betwen copied for commercial interests or for non-commercial interests?
pops up not believing their precious words belong to them, by some miricle artistic law...
I'd suggest you look in to 'Fair Use' and the scope that covers...
I then suggest you try and find any website anywhere that has successfully sued anyone for using an article..
Then get back to me with your surities...
Wake up and smell the coffee...
Copying an entire article, rather than brief excerpts, is NOWHERE CLOSE to 'fair use' anywhere.
The lack of a functioning link back simply rubs salt into the wounds.
The scrapemaster who refuses to take the articles down, now duly notified, is cruising for a bruising. -Larry
Check this article ( Google sued over copyright 'infringement' )
[smh.com.au...]
But i cound not find where someone was sued for a single or a few articles...
The issue is far bigger than just copying an article. Today, content is the king, as we all say. And content needs to be taken care of, protected, in order to prove to be a resource to earn.
I have researched and studied and spoken with and taken advice from copyright lawyers etc ...
Yet the facts remain as of today, that Fair Use has not been tested in this context and although some website articles may pop up with an explaination of just using a few lines of excerts etc is ok.. this has never been tested nor is it a fact of law..
The gulf of what constitutes fair use is far far greater than these little articles realise themselves.. ( you will notice they all come with disclaimers on that advice ;) )
copying an entire book and repackaging it and selling it perhaps.. but taking an article from the WWW which is freely open to anyone, is not illegal as the law stands...
Lots of people puffing and panting ( mostly precious developers ;) ) but as it stands my first post still holds true.. like it or not ...
or Google TOS?
[techlawjournal.com...]
I dont know if they won their appeal though..
If you do stand a chance it may be with AdSense, but if they had to deal with every complaint that came in they would have to open an entire department just to deal with it.. you will receive a sorry there is nothing we can do and some advice on what to do, which will be pointless...
There is no ombudsman to deal with words...
You would have to enlist a legal firm and take on that cost, then after much back and forth and setting court dates and running up costs, it will simply be dropped before it costs the defendents any money, but will have cost you much...
It is simply not feasible to monitor, administer or enforce ... There is no specific law that covers it, it would only work on a case by case situation and as it stands it is NOT illegal...
Go with my first advice and save your sanity ;)
to put it in context, one multinational newspaper sued another newspaper for using their headlines and deeplinking to their site ...
The only people that made money was the lawyers and the case was not resolved in law, but simply dropped out of court .. when the defendents agreed to not do it...
That was in 1998, the law was never tested or changed and infact has no bearing on any other case that may appear...
I'm sure you're getting the picture here ...
Sobriquet can only appeal to simple netiquette and have links to his own site inserted .. as I originally stated..
Luckily, and as has already been suggested, there are lots of ways you can drive the content off the web without going to court, e.g. the DMCA, making a formal complaint to infringer's sponsors, and making a formal complaint to the infringer's ISP. If he has any sense he'll back down and remove the articles.
I know you are finding it difficult getting it round your head, and somehow everyone apart from you talks #*$!...? there is no ifs or buts or internet legal structure coming to save the day..
It is NOT repeat NOT illegal ...
As you and others have no doubt realised and searched for, there is no other case to refer to ..
So you can huff and puff and make grand legal gestures towards anyone you like, but if they don't want to take it down, they simply don't have to...
So rather than issuing threats and showing your ignorance, perhaps a more polite request would be the better approach for our friend here ...
