Forum Moderators: martinibuster
Website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content. Please see our DMCA policy for more information.
Ladies and Gentlemen, fire up your word processor and start firing off DMCA [google.com] letters if you've been scraped.
Account TerminationMany Google Services do not have account holders or subscribers. For Services that do, Google will, in appropriate circumstances, terminate repeat infringers. If you believe that an account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer, please follow the instructions above to contact Google and provide information sufficient for us to verify that the account holder or subscriber is a repeat infringer.
It would appear that if enough people file against the scrapers, they will lose their accounts.
It's about time.
[edited by: Brett_Tabke at 12:38 pm (utc) on Jan. 25, 2007]
I'm in ecommerce, so ultimately the only copyright violations I'm truly bothered about are from local competitors, and these are black and white in law so they don't bother me too much.
I'm not entirely sure, but I got the feeling that you may think I am a scraper myself - I'm not, I just don't have much of a personal stake in this issue. Therefore I'm thinking more as a user of the internet when it comes to content than as a creator.
Aggregators are important. I'm not against a content producer controlling their work, but I am against a default assumption of all rights reserved on the internet. IMO, if you want the right to use the legal system to control your content, you should be prepared to make a machine-readable statement of your wishes. It's not a lot to ask really, compared to all you get from copyright protection. It also means that all of us billions out there get search engines worthy of the name.
I don't understand why this thread was started.
Threads like this invoke thought so they are good.
AdSense has had a rule against its ads appearing on sites that violate copyright for a long time.
Sure it has but we all forget the importance of the laws unless it's is brought up now and then.
It's kind of like this quote from the DMCA: If the provider has the right and ability to control the infringing activity, the provider must not receive a financial benefit directly attributable to the activity.
Google is not doing this to be nice...they are doing it to comply with the law or they could get into a little hot water for every cached AdSense hit they registered on copyrighted material.
JAG
Enforcement takes time, but get your papers in now, and watch your ranking go up. ( my point of view )
Mojomike
I don't understand why this thread was started. Is there a new policy in place?
Yes, there was a policy change, that was the whole point.
I posted about some changes coming a while back based on a comment from Matt Cutts:
[webmasterworld.com...]
This appears to be some of those changes.
The AdSense policy previously read:
In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.
The new policy states:
Website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with content protected by copyright law unless they have the necessary legal rights to display that content. Please see our DMCA policy for more information.
So you see, the policy is a bit broader in scope for what they claim can result in being banned from AdSense.
I'm not entirely sure, but I got the feeling that you may think I am a scraper myself - I'm not, I just don't have much of a personal stake in this issue. Therefore I'm thinking more as a user of the internet when it comes to content than as a creator.
NO never thought you were a scraper. Never crossed my mind. When you say "I just don't have much of a personal stake in this issue" is one reason not to blanked everything with an implied wishes to copy and cache a site. Everyone is different.
"you should be prepared to make a machine-readable statement of your wishes" -- Copyright exists upon creation and requires no notification. This is where the implied is backwards. It should be that the owner should specifically state (a machine readable statement) his/her wishes but should NOT be implied that if no notice is given someone can imply his/her wishes or that the copyright is non existant.
"I am against a default assumption of all rights reserved on the internet" This is a copyright for ya. It is up to the owner. Someone else should not imply what those rights are - such as derivative works. Now enter fair use...where most scrapers hide under.
[edited by: arubicus at 8:49 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2007]
Google is not doing this to be nice...they are doing it to comply with the law or they could get into a little hot water for every cached AdSense hit they registered on copyrighted material.
Since they can dump AdSense publishers for any reason at any time, I'd guess their real reason for drawing more attention to the existing "no infringement" policy is to serve notice on infringers that the tolerance knob has been turned down.
IMHO, this is a bit like having "SPEED LIMIT ENFORCED" signs along the highway: Publishers who get dumped for testing Google's limits of tolerance will have only themselves to blame.
it's actually very difficult to give up your copyright entirely, and there is no chance of that happening with scrapers who never got your written permission to use the content on their sites.
thanks for a great thread, bill... i wonder if there are implications for sites that frame content from other pages.
I'm in ecommerce, so ultimately the only copyright violations I'm truly bothered about are from local competitors, and these are black and white in law so they don't bother me too much.
I wouldn't be so narrow in my view of who you should worry about as I've been scraped by sites that associate my material with porn and damaged my site reputation and cost me a few advertisers.
Reputation is a very serious matter, another reason I go after scrapers.
Reputation is a very serious matter, another reason I go after scrapers.
Amen to that!
Wouldn't you agree that the Adsense reputation has been a little bit affected just the same.
[edited by: arubicus at 9:01 pm (utc) on Jan. 18, 2007]
thanks for a great thread, bill... i wonder if there are implications for sites that frame content from other pages.
Are you trying to put About.com out of business? :-)
In any case, that's a good point. A framed page (with the framing site's URL in the address bar) strikes me as being a lot worse than a snippet of text (with a link to the original site) on a page of scraped SERP results or diretory listings, because (a) users may be deceived into thinking that the page's content is on the framing site, and (b) many users won't be technically astute enough to strip the framing site's portion of the URL out of the address bar, hit "reload," and display the unframed page before bookmarking it.
Another thought: Google's motivation may also be to go after publishers who are stealing its content (more specifically, search-results pages). Presumably Google's SERPs are protected by a compilation copyright.
In any case, that's a good point. A framed page (with the framing site's URL in the address bar) strikes me as being a lot worse than a snippet of text (with a link to the original site) on a page of scraped SERP results or diretory listings, because (a) users may be deceived into thinking that the page's content is on the framing site, and (b) many users won't be technically astute enough to strip the framing site's portion of the URL out of the address bar, hit "reload," and display the unframed page before bookmarking it.
I am more worried about such site creating an income showing advertising around my entire work. Advertising that I have no control over (such as porn) nor any kind of royalty from it. Another way sites like these get away with it is by adding a link to remove the frame. A frame buster helps out a bit with this.
In order to avoid associations with copyright claims, website publishers may not display Google ads on web pages with MP3, Video, News Groups, and Image Results.
Google is shamelessly displaying adsense on News Groups. Google CSE is new way of scraping and Google DOES allow adsense on it.
Are you trying to put About.com out of business? :-)
I wish; they are the WORST of the ones I have to deal with as far as swiping from my site, word for word.
And that's just it - I don't particularly know enough about copyrights to know whether or not I can go after them (or the local media who do the same thing) - the information I serve up is out there for almost anyone to get, but I go around and collect it up (either on the web or by phone, letter or email) and sort it and make it searchable, and in many cases, write or rewrite descriptions. AND I list a source for my information, with a link if available, as well. From what little I understand, I can claim a compilation copyright for this. But every year my listings get lifted word for word by sites like about.com, and local newspaper and television sites. (Oddly enough, the radio stations are all cool about giving credit and a link back to my site - which is all I ask - I don't care if they use my listings if they just credit it and link back to me) It's MOST aggravating.
I have been working on keeping my reputation very clean in the brick business that I run. I would like to mention that when I call people in my industry, they already know my reputation and are willing to take my call and already know that it's a qualified call. So take it with a grain of salt, if you are a trusted person ( web site ), people will look towards you as a source, the value of this is HUGE
Michael
Google is shamelessly displaying adsense on News Groups.
And if they want to get their $1.65 billion back it'll be on youtube. No copyright violations go on there...right?
JAG
Google is shamelessly displaying adsense on News Groups
So what? Google doesn't have to abide by the TOS that governs publishers, any more than you'd have to abide by rules governing contributors, business partners, etc. on your own site.
Let's not clutter up this AdSense thread with irrelevant gripes about what Google does or doesn't do at Google.com.
So what? Google doesn't have to abide by the TOS that governs publishers
Correct about the TOS.
But it is Google who is now saying that webmasters cannot show ads in these places because of potential copyright violations. That is completely different than just some silly rule in a TOS saying a webmaster can't do it because we're Google and we say so.
JAG
But it is Google who is now saying that webmasters cannot show ads in these places because of potential copyright violations. That is completely different than just some silly rule in a TOS saying a webmaster can't do it because we're Google and we say so.
True, but it isn't unreasonable for Google to be cautious about what its business partners do, because those business partners' sites (unlike Google.com) aren't being vetted by Google's legal advisors.
As for whether the "AdSense policy update puts scrapers on notice," I don't know if that's true or not--after all, the policy may be directed at wholesale content thieves. If if discouraging scrapers is the goal, Google might be able to communicate its message more effectively by bringing back the rule against displaying AdSense ads on search-engine results pages and/or prohibiting the use of scraped content (whether that content is copyrighted or in the public domain).
But every year my listings get lifted word for word by sites like about.com, and local newspaper and television sites.
expect the fight for unique content to be THE hot issue in 2007.
especially as most people - notably including larger print and online editorial offices - won't do the work and compile something out of their own brains. the consequence of too few advertising revenue to feed the staff.
How are they going to handle that one?
By the way, in general I'm really happy with the update so long as it's used to get rid of the utter cr~p out there.
that's not the same thing as putting original content on your own website, because when you posted it to the newsgroup, you gave a sort of implied consent to letting it be reproduced like that.
however, you still didn't give up your copyright, and if you have followed the trail of the usenet archive over the decades, some of the hosts of that content would allow you to request that it be removed from their archive... i think that even google did that.
compare that to posting to a privately owned forum like WebmasterWorld... there has to be a copyright agreement between the forum and the poster, that details useage but not ownership of the content.
wrt to framed content, what about the way that pages are framed in some image search engines... there are a lot of big names out there that are framing pages.
True, but it isn't unreasonable for Google to be cautious about what its business partners do, because those business partners' sites (unlike Google.com) aren't being vetted by Google's legal advisors.
Being cautious is one thing so I guess it is a toss up on whether webmasters should read the DMCA notice as a Google trying to do good or Google saying webmasters are not capable of generating unique content in some forms. Who knows. But one thing is for sure...if the Google legal folks are going to ensure compliance on Google properties they are going to be very busy with youtube and I can just imagine what the legal costs will be!
As for whether the "AdSense policy update puts scrapers on notice," I don't know if that's true or not
I think you may be right. Legally Google cannot use the DMCA to remove content for good. They cannot be the judge, jury and executioner.
Something I think is interesting about the DMCA though is that there is a process that has to be followed. In a nutshell, to protect the true owner from having someone else bring down their work, when Google gets a complaint it has to notify the offending person (scraper) ASAP. Worse still is that all the scraper has to do is say something along the lines of 'all is OK and it is really mine...scouts honor...trust me'. Google would then be required to put the content back within 10-14 business days and it is now up to the true owner to file a complaint in court and we know how long that would take if you could get the scraper to even show up in court.
So maybe Google is just being paranoid since they really cannot do a darn thing to scrapers anyway.
As for the frame question - according to the DMCA Google, and others, CANNOT alter the content in any way so something as simple as highlighting search terms could be considered an alteration but probably not frames if it keeps the original page intact.
JAG
Being cautious is one thing so I guess it is a toss up on whether webmasters should read the DMCA notice as a Google trying to do good or Google saying webmasters are not capable of generating unique content in some forms.
I certainly don't think Google is saying Webmasters aren't capable of generating unique content. If anything, the opposite message is being sent.
I think you may be right. Legally Google cannot use the DMCA to remove content for good. They cannot be the judge, jury and executioner.
Google doesn't host AdSense publishers' content. In any case, Google can cancel a publisher's account for any reason, just as it can remove pages from its search index for any reason (see the judge's ruling in the SearchKing case).
.... Worse still is that all the scraper has to do is say something along the lines of 'all is OK and it is really mine...scouts honor...trust me'. Google would then be required to put the content back within 10-14 business days and it is now up to the true owner to file a complaint in court and we know how long that would take if you could get the scraper to even show up in court.
The DMCA requires Google to do certain things if a violation is reported, but it doesn't require Google to restore the account of a scraper or other publisher who hasn't been found guilty of copyright violations, or to restore listings that have been removed from Google SERPs.
I think the reference to copyright infringements is simply an attempt to send a warning ("don't steal content or you're outta here"). Since Google doesn't have to cite the reason for terminating its agreement with a publisher, infringers whose accounts are cancelled will probably receive boilerplate e-mails about invalid clicks or unspecified TOS violations, just as in the past.
It is my understanding that there is international copyright laws and NOT EVERY country subscribes to them. Its like the US and US companies to force their will on the rest of the world. If someone puts credits on their site for an article that I have written you know what fine. All Google is doing is trying to force the DMCA on the rest of the world. Which by the way is US BASED NOT INTERNATIONAL LAW.
Any legal eagles here...if my Adsense account is in say China and my site is on Google China and Google closes my account I think I can sue them as I have not breached any laws in China have I? assuming China does not subscribe to these laws; so this would be "wonton" discrimination. Copyright laws do have borders.
My 2 cents.
Google doesn't host AdSense publishers' content.
But they kind of do if it is in the cache...by assigning an agent they have registered themselves as a 'service provider' which *should* force them to follow the rules of a service provider since it also removes some liability.
In any case, Google can cancel a publisher's account for any reason, just as it can remove pages from its search index for any reason (see the judge's ruling in the SearchKing case).
That's the odd thing. How can they choose to abide by some of the DMCA but not all of it? The searchking case was all about pagerank and Google absolutely has a right to say a page didn't make the cut because of the algo but the DMCA isn't the same. If Google followed the DMCA and put the page back and then removed it because they didn't like the font size or whatever then OK fine.
So I'm stuck on are they a service provider in the eyes of the DMCA with limited liability or are they a business making money of off nothing but copyrighted material? I honestly don't know that answer but it bugs me that they want to assume enough bad things about webmasters to put this into their set of rules.
JAG
But I want to point out something from the U.S. Copyright site:
The safest course is always to get permission from the copyright owner before using copyrighted material. The Copyright Office cannot give this permission.When it is impracticable to obtain permission, use of copyrighted material should be avoided unless the doctrine of “fair use” would clearly apply to the situation.
Every web page I have published has a Contact link on the page, making it very easy for anyone to contact me.
I'm no attorney, but the above makes me think if I ever was involved in copyright litigation with someone who took my content, the first request my attorney would make would be for the offender to provide proof of an attempt to contact me for permission.
If no such proof of contact exists when my contact link is right there on the page, the proceedings should cease right there without the need to debate whether the content was taken for a "Fair Use."
FarmBoy
...I'd guess their real reason for drawing more attention to the existing "no infringement" policy is to serve notice on infringers that the tolerance knob has been turned down.
IB, this is good news and I'm glad you started this thread.
However, as an AdSense publisher, I didn't receive an email from AdSense informing me of the change in policy. I probably wouldn't know about it if I had not of read this thread.
That means a lot of offending publishers are also likely not to know about it. Of course, "ignorance of the law is no excuse" certainly applies, but if Google really wanted to draw attention to this and put people on notice, I would think they would want to at least send publishers an email announcement.
If I get an email from AdSense about this, then I'll believe they are really serious.
FarmBoy
Aggregators are important.
What exactly does that mean?
IMO, if you want the right to use the legal system to control your content, you should be prepared to make a machine-readable statement of your wishes.
If what I infer is not what you meant to imply, please correct me.
But when I read the above, I think of someone who develops a robot to go around to all the cars in a large shopping mall parking lot and check each car to see if it can unlock the car and start the ignition. When the robot finds such a car, the robot notifies its owner who comes over and steals the car.
Then the robot's owner, during the auto theft trial, claims the car owners should have posted a "Don't steal this car" notice in a manner the robot could read.
Like I said, please correct me if I misunderstood the point.
FarmBoy
