Is filing a DMCA with google worth it?

[azn romeo 4u]

I found a site that copy my site, over 2000+ images taken from my site, and uploaded by the site owner to his/her own site.

Filing the DMCA form with google requires me to fill in 2000+ urls. Thats a very tedious job. Is it worth it? The site in question was only registered for 2 months, and somehow ranked in the top already for certain keywords, and that's how I found out about the site.

[canuckseo]

I've had to do it in the past - had a scraper site outranking us for many search terms. The DCMA helped and the process when I did it a couple years ago was quite fast actually.

It was so bad we were penalized by Yahoo (at the time) for having duplicate content when it was OUR content in the first place - we had no Yahoo rankings until the DCMA then once the offending site was removed we started gaining. That was until the Bing deal, now it's not a problem at all.

[aristotle]

Filing the DMCA form with google requires me to fill in 2000+ urls

If all of the offending images are on the same site, then calling attention to just a few might take care of all of the others too. Could be worth a try anyway.

[renomart]

Yes, filing a DMCA with Google DOES work!

I have found that it takes about 3-4 days for something to happen.

[potentialgeek]

One email to the hosting company might get faster results. Most hosts are very skittish esp. when the email comes from an attorney. I know because I used to run a free speech site.

[LostOne]

It may be me but for the first time I noticed a DMCA report in the SERPS today. It mentioned an offending site had been removed. The notice was beneath the tenth result.

In response to a complaint we received under the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we have removed 1 result(s) from this page. If you wish, you may read the DMCA complaint that caused the removal(s) at ChillingEffects.org.

Having never paid much attention to DMCA's this may be common?

[Content_ed]

They've improved hugely in the past few months. At the beginning of the year, it typically took a month or longer to get any action from Google on DMCA, and often they rejected legitimate complaints for false reasons. An angry reply would usually lead them to accept the complaint that they just reported wasn't acceptable.

But in the last couple months, they've been getting back within a day or two and they are much more likely to take action without fighting about it.

And don't forget that Google also has a form for reporting when scraper sites rank above originals in search. Just search on "Report Scraper Pages." It doesn't replace the DMCA, but it may help them teach the algo to make fewer errors. Like Panda:-)

[MrSavage]

I'm currently in the exact situation as the OP, although it's text, not images.

I am following the advice. However I have one question and consideration.

Is it possible that the best remedy is to deal with Google primarily? If a host pulls a site off, is it not possible that you miss out of some of the Google love that they might give back? I mean this in the sense that if the scraper took your content, has been using it, achieved value in Google's eyes from that content, shouldn't you tell Google that you were the rightful owner and that any value over time that they took, could be give back to you?

I'm perhaps thinking too much on this. I wonder though if they outrank you, that there is something from Google's end that could take back from the scraper and add that incremental value (if there is any) back to your site?

[Zivush]

Yes, filing a DMCA with Google DOES work!

Which form do you use?
DCMA:
[google.com ]

Report scrapers:
[docs.google.com ]

or one of these forms:
[google.com ]

[Content_ed]

Mr. Savage,

I've spent hundreds of hours this year filing DMCA complaints, many of them direct with Google. It hasn't helped a bit with Panda, but I have seen fewer scrapers coming up before my pages in Google Search.

[oliondor]

DMCA is ok to do as it's fast, no need to report all Urls.

[asusplay]

So is it enough to file the DMCA through Google, or do you also have to go through the DMCA website which is a paid service?

I haven't done this before but I am about to report a few pages.

[azn romeo 4u]

Update, I filled out the form, and reported only 20 URLs. I got an e-mail back in 1 day. Those 20 urls were removed. The guy/gal asked if I needed anything else, so I asked if I should file another dmca for those other 2000+ URLS...

Waiting on his/her reply.

It was fast though.

[MrSavage]

Okay, here is an update and I hope it's useful.

My situation is that I had a few pages/images being scraped. This person is ranking #1, and their blog is a scrape of many many sites. It's all scraped because you can copy a couple sentences from any article and you're going to find the original from a legit site.

So, I did the Google thing. I've also dealt with the host which is named after an alligator. Know which one?

Anyways, the host emailed me back to say the content of mine was removed. Sure it is. However, I have since asked them, what about the other scraped articles?

So the question I have is this. Is it really this easy for a scraper? They won't get taken offline? The host requires each and every original content owner to submit, then it gets removed, and the host simply ignores the fact that the site is scraping every other article?

This is complete madness. So this host needs what. 20 complaints before they take it offline? 50 complaints? Or do they just ask the site politely to remove the offending content only when a complaint is made?

[rlange]

MrSavage wrote:
So the question I have is this. Is it really this easy for a scraper? They won't get taken offline? The host requires each and every original content owner to submit, then it gets removed, and the host simply ignores the fact that the site is scraping every other article?

This is complete madness. So this host needs what. 20 complaints before they take it offline? 50 complaints?

Any host would be insane to take on the legal liability of deciding who is the original owner of content on sites under their umbrella. So they wait for someone to file a claim. If the claim is false, it's claimant's skin, not the host's.

--
Ryan

[MrSavage]

@rlange, just to clarify, this is all hosts policies? That a scraping report isn't enough to take a site down, but simply will get the pages in question removed? In other words the site is safe even though all the other content is scraped? Is there no tipping point? No way a host takes down a scraper site at all?

I'm just asking what is the deterrent. So this guy could just copy a different one of my pages, put it up, and I go through the exact same process with the host? Yet the host can let it continue?

[HRoth]

They are not going to take a site down on the basis of it ripping off the content of a bunch of different sites unless all of those sites contact them and make a complaint. I have seen sites like this (not scrapers--ecommerce sites) using my content and that of many other online shops or whatnot, but a webhost IME will only remove the pages that contain the content that the person contacting them owns. It makes sense. They can't go on the word of someone who does not own the content. For all they know, the web owner has permission to use that other stuff.

Re Google DMCAs being worth it, they have been totally worth it for me, but they are a last ditch effort. It is often easier to contact the webmaster and ask them to remove it. If they don't, then I contact the webhost. If the webhost is a jerk, then Google. I have had to DMCA to Google only a couple of things, when the webhost refused to respond in any way.

[MrSavage]

Thanks for the added information. I've certainly had my eyes opened on this issue.

Having said that it still doesn't wash with me. A host can plead ignorance to an illegal activity. In real life, does a cop go into a house for a domestic call, yet ignore the crop of marijuana sitting in the living room? If a host was brainless, yes they could assume that the scraper is legit. See no evil, hear no evil.

I guess it's anything goes right now. A smart scraper takes one article per website, enjoys the ride, and simply reads the hosts emails and removes the pages as the complaints come in. No running tally, each complaint apparently is a separate entity. The host no knows better. Afterall, how could they ever figure out a scraper site? How about asking the website for proof of the duplicate content? If the scraper has an article from CNET, geez I wonder who is the originator. Again, if we live in a brainless world, I might by the hosts responsibility in all this.

But as the OP, I will update to see how the actions have or haven't worked out. I see now that contacting the host is a waste of time. Google at least can drop them from the index or take some action that will make the practice less profitable. I thought the host might actually take action against a site but that was obvious naive on my part.