Duplicate Content - Are DMCA Requests Still In Vogue

[austtr]

Copyscape reports that my site(s) content is copied (a lot), usually appearing in blogs that are total crud.... 10,15,20 topics crammed into a single blog page full of keyword stuffing, link drops etc etc. I'm sure I am not alone in this and it is a problem that has been around for a long time.

Back in the day I would send Google a DCMA request but has the search environment moved on from those days? Are the search engines now savvy enough to recognize the original publisher, to ignore the crud copies, to no longer devalue sites/pages for duplicate content infringements that are beyond the control of the original publisher?

I could probably spend the next week to 10 days doing nothing else than generate DMCA requests. Do I need to do that anymore?

[netmeg]

Have you noticed any ranking or traffic issues?

[austtr]

Traffic and rankings tanked on April 24th 2012 which was the Penguin 1.0 release. I am quite certain of that... the cliff face in the traffic graph is very obvious for that date.

IMO Penguin updates have essentially been the blunt instruments used to "re-assess" the worth of sites standing between Google and the money in niches like travel where Google now has a direct commercial interest.... but that is going off topic.

I have seen lots of discussion about Goole not being able to determine who is the original publisher but nothing that indicates Penguin is punishing the original publisher in duplicate content scenarios.

[seoskunk]

If you a dmca google will publish it and contents of your dmca will rank on a search, even if you don't complete it. I personally am put off doing dmca's because of this.

[eek2121]

I wouldn't bother, in my personal experience the duplicate content is detected by Google and it doesn't rank. One caveat to that is that if you use Adsense, make sure to send DMCA requests to the hosting provider of such sites.

[tangor]

DCMA notices to the host of the offending site will generally give better results than sending to google. You want the content removed from the WEB, not from g's search.... two different kinds of critter.

[chrisv1963]

I wouldn't bother, in my personal experience the duplicate content is detected by Google and it doesn't rank.

Google DOES NOT detect duplicate content, especially not images. Hundreds of images stolen from one of my major websites are ranking on Google. In many cases the original is no longer ranking, but the stolen version with scraped dummy text around it is. What really makes me angry is that Google can not even detect the dummy text that comes with the stolen photo. I have an example of a website with thousands of stolen photos, each one of them on a page with dummy text + an AdSense ad and Google is giving them good placements in the serps.

I gave up sending DMCAs because it ended up being a full time job. Also with Pinterest and Google giving Pinterest pages high rankings in the serps I'm afraid that content theft has been "legalized" by Pinterest and Google.

If Google would be able to detect the original and the duplicate content, then Pinterest photos wouldn't rank in Google Image Search. Only the originals would.

[tangor]

If all things were equal, Pintrerest would not exists, much less rank as the very nature of its business is other people's work. But that's a different work than were we actually live.

[samwest]

I feel your pain ausstr - what really chaps my back side is that Google KNOWS who the original author is...they MUST! I think Schmidt made comment to the fact that if your photo is online 14 times, they know EXACTLY who you are..and likely where you are and where you're about to go. (seriously, he said that!)
So, If they can't ID a few paragraphs of copy or even a photograph, which unlike your face does not have many different angles of POV. then they aren't trying to ID IP at all. Something they SHOULD be doing and are fully capable of doing. It's tantamount to negligence and it's extremely damaging to sites.
They should know the time and date a photo or paragraph first appeared and then any subsequent copies on other domains would be considered stolen. See? I just wrote the whole algorithm description in one short sentence. The only reason they post the "rank & bank" site is to churn a few more ad dollars.

@ - tangor - the difference with Pinterest is that they credit you with a proper back link. That's a BIG difference from what the rank & banks do. They steal your sh*t then claim it as their own.

[glakes]

Google definitely is not a partner in stopping the theft of intellectual property. In fact, they condone the activity when it comes to stolen images/text that ranks on their blogger platform.

[netmeg]

I have an example of a website with thousands of stolen photos, each one of them on a page with dummy text + an AdSense ad and Google is giving them good placements in the serps.

Don't bother with DMCA. Report them to AdSense. Repeatedly. It works. Not as quickly as you'd like, but it does work. I speak from much experience.

[chrisv1963]

Report them to AdSense. Repeatedly.

I did. It didn't help. Actually that website is also posting adult type photos along with AdSense. I reported these pages too (more than 20, repeatedly at a pace of one per day) . The AdSense ads disappeared from those pages with adult photos but not from the pages with my (non-adult) photos. Normally they should have banned the entire AdSense account for the adult content, but they didn't. Why not? Maybe this AdSense account based on thousands of pages with stolen content is generating a lot of cash?

the difference with Pinterest is that they credit you with a proper back link.

Not always. Some of the photos on Pinterest are "uploaded by the user" and then there's no credit and no link. And when you do get a backlink then it is pretty useless. Why would people visit your website when they can already view the full size photo on Pinterest? Maybe that's a good idea to hurt my competitors. Download all their photos an then upload it to Pinterest as "uploaded by user" without a backlink or anything ...

[tangor]

@ - tangor - the difference with Pinterest is that they credit you with a proper back link. That's a BIG difference from what the rank & banks do. They steal your sh*t then claim it as their own.

A difference of no distinction. After all, the user has seen the image and has no reason to follow the link.

[nomis5]

G most definitely can identify duplicate content. After a mistake i made introducing a mobile version for one of sites i know that for definite.

They just seem incapable of recognising who is the original owner. The web is not the only source of original content and when you take that into account the problem becomes virtually impossible to solve.

[netmeg]

I dunno, I've taken out a couple dozen content thieves by reporting them to AdSense. (I know this because I keep a spreadsheet) It does take repeated reports, and then the miscreants finally lose their AdSense account, then they try monetizing it with a gazillion infolinks ads and then finally they give up as Google slowly starts taking their pages out of the index (or at least they don't come up for anything but nonsense searches)