ExtortionLetterInfo Forums
Retired Forums => Legal Controversies Forum => Topic started by: Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi) on August 10, 2012, 04:25:43 PM
-
Not troll related, but interesting nonetheless...directly from the official Google Search Blog
We aim to provide a great experience for our users and have developed over 200 signals to ensure our search algorithms deliver the best possible results. Starting next week, we will begin taking into account a new signal in our rankings: the number of valid copyright removal notices we receive for any given site. Sites with high numbers of removal notices may appear lower in our results. This ranking change should help users find legitimate, quality sources of content more easily—whether it’s a song previewed on NPR’s music website, a TV show on Hulu or new music streamed from Spotify.
Since we re-booted our copyright removals over two years ago, we’ve been given much more data by copyright owners about infringing content online. In fact, we’re now receiving and processing more copyright removal notices every day than we did in all of 2009—more than 4.3 million URLs in the last 30 days alone. We will now be using this data as a signal in our search rankings.
Only copyright holders know if something is authorized, and only courts can decide if a copyright has been infringed; Google cannot determine whether a particular webpage does or does not violate copyright law. So while this new signal will influence the ranking of some search results, we won’t be removing any pages from search results unless we receive a valid copyright removal notice from the rights owner. And we’ll continue to provide "counter-notice" tools so that those who believe their content has been wrongly removed can get it reinstated. We’ll also continue to be transparent about copyright removals.
-
Great posting, and of great interest.
This sort of thing makes my blood boil.
Because, the number of infringement "claims" reported to google will skyrocket as "reporting your competitor" becomes a part of "black-hat" SEO.
Add to this that most people/companies don't have the foggiest clue as to what constitutes actual legal ownership, or what an actual infringement is.
S.G.
-
Of course Google is going to play the "safe harbor" game. The rule was built for that very purpose. Many critics claim Google and GoDaddy roll over too easily when someone makes a DMCA removal request, but what can they be expected to do? They can't take sides unless the claim appears fatuous at face value or the paperwork submitted is incomplete or defective in any way.
If someone makes a false DMCA removal request as part of a black-hat SEO attempt, they're exposing themselves to criminal charges. If one is wrongly accused with a false DMCA removal request, one can appeal to Google or the ISP with a counter-notice and usually get the content reinstated if the explanation is reasonable.
Google also appears to be reacting to the post-Panda/Penguin world of SEO. Since they've made it such a no-no to have duplicate content, they are responding to webmasters being ever more sensitive to having their rankings lowered by third-party sites who scrape their content. I think Google is being consistent by being responsive to DMCA removals — they pretty much forced the situation.
Webmasters reporting websites for copyright infringement are basically helping Google decide which source was the original and which source was the duplicate. It makes sense that if a site gets reported many times for scraping other people's content, they're probably a low-quality site dealing in cheesy black-hat SEO tactics and other such distasteful spammy practices.
You can see how Google benefits by taking a back seat and watching the DMCA takedown tournament play out.
-
Google isn't an ISP, so I don't think that this would a "DMCA" issue.
Additionally, the DMCA is not a "criminal" statute.
Google isn't "forced" into this; it's just a bad idea.
Most people don't know a thing about copyright; it's baffling that so many people want to get on the bandwagon though.
There will be many lawsuits with actual damages because of this.
S.G.
-
Great article Robert, I agree with what they are trying to do and I’m sure it will be modified and tweaked but I applaud them for it.
-
Actually SG, while I agree they are not an ISP it would appear that Google is adhering to DMCA guidelines, if you go here, you can walk thru the steps, and the last question asks if you are the copyright owner, if you select "no" the following pops up
"In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), we only accept copyright complaints from content owners or someone officially authorized to act on their behalf. If you have legal questions about the DMCA (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office Web Site, http://www.copyright.gov), please consult your own legal counsel."
http://support.google.com/bin/static.py?hl=en&ts=1114905&page=ts.cs
Googles Transparency Report gives a glimpse of how much time and effort is put into takedown requests.
http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/removals/copyright/
I've browsed thru the chilling effects database of takedowns and the numbers are literally staggering.
-
I haven't had a chance to read it all as yet.
However, it would seem that they've modelled their guidelines on the DMCA.
But, this doesn't seem to fit into the actual DMCA law, as google cannot actually remove content from a site, or deactivate a site.
I don't recall DMCA laws mentioning anything about removal from search engine listings...
...and therein lies the problem with google's plan; they're attempting to employ a law in a manner for which it isn't intended.
This cannot be good.
This is google's "corporate policy". It's not "law". Since the "law" likely doesn't apply here, how will legal disputes be settled?
A judge will have to decide on a case-by-case basis. What a mess.
S.G.
-
Google will remove URLs from search results upon filing of a formal DMCA removal request. As Robert mentions, they also pioneered reporting each request they receive to ChillingEffects.org to keep the whole deal transparent.
Like Robert says, the number of requests are staggering and they involve all kinds of intellectual property, such as music, software, text, images, artwork, etc.
The other reason they will remove URLs from search result pages is trademark infringement, but that's a different process and a different form than the copyright infringement removal request.
In any case, I think Google is trying to cover their bases from being dragged into copyright infringement litigation by voluntarily adhering to the DMCA safe harbor. I'm not saying it's legal. It seems to me that they don't care how the legal disputes are settled, they just take the requests and process them in an automatic fashion so that they don't get dragged into the disputes.
Was the DMCA safe harbor intended only for ISPs? I thought there was some latitude to include other types of operators.
-
Since the DMCA doesn't apply to search engines, one could easily fight google on the basis that the DMCA law doesn't apply...
...unless somebody can show me the part of the DMCA that states such?
...or shall we just make up stuff as we go?
I think that it's important to understand the implications.
Imagine that a competitor of yours reports your e-commerce site to google on the basis of a phony infringement claim.
Google immediately removes the site from the listings, and you lose 100k a day.
You take google to court for damages, and they say that they employed the DMCA.
BUT, the DMCA applies to ISP's and NOT search engines. See the problem? Google might be held responsible.
S.G.
-
I'm not sure DMCA applies exclusively to ISPs, but you may have a point there, S.G.
If someone accuses you of infringement by filing a DMCA request with Google, they're filing a legal affidavit and there are penalties for filing a false claim. Google will notify you immediately about the claim and you have a certain time period in which to respond by filing another affidavit claiming the other party is wrong and why you say so. If you don't respond, Google assumes the complaint is valid.
They also study the complaint to make sure it's coherent enough to be plausible. They don't just take anyone's word for an infringement.
The reason there are so many complaints may have something to do with the amount of scraping that's going on and with the increased importance of avoiding content duplication. Even if one didn't use to care about being scraped, now it could result in lower search engine rankings which means a devalued brand for companies with a heavy internet presence. Now one is forced to consider the SEO cost of ignoring the duplication of one's content.
After the big Panda/Penguin shakeup, I bet a whole lot of webmasters and SEO technicians started to get more concerned with content duplication issues.
-
Actually, search engines specifically qualify for the Safe Harbor provisions:
http://www.chillingeffects.org/dmca512/faq.cgi#QID127
Question: What defines a service provider under Section 512 of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA)?
Answer: A service provider is defined as "an entity offering transmission, routing, or providing connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received" or "a provider of online services or network access, or the operator of facilities thereof." [512(k)(1)(A-B)] This broad definition includes network services companies such as Internet service providers (ISPs), search engines, bulletin board system operators, and even auction web sites. In A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster Inc., the court refused to extend the safe harbor provisions to the Napster software program and service, leaving open the question of whether peer-to-peer networks also qualify for safe harbor protection under Section 512.
There are four major categories of network systems offered by service providers that qualify for protection under the safe harbor provisions:
- Conduit Communications include the transmission and routing of information, such as an email or Internet service provider, which store the material only temporarily on their networks. [Sec. 512(a)]
- System Caching refers to the temporary copies of data that are made by service providers in providing the various services that require such copying in order to transfer data. [Sec. 512(b)]
- Storage Systems refers to services which allow users to store information on their networks, such as a web hosting service or a chat room. [Sec. 512(c)]
- Information Location Tools refer to services such as search engines, directories, or pages of recommended web sites which provide links to the allegedly infringing material. [Sec. 512(d)]
-
Point well taken...
Thanks for the info.
It seems that this is nothing really new. Although it's new to me (thanks Buddhapi).
I found an article on "Plagiarism Today" that mentions this from 2007.
I guess that this was a last resort tactic... is google publicising this as something new?
S.G.
-
Since the DMCA doesn't apply to search engines, one could easily fight google on the basis that the DMCA law doesn't apply...
Google is a privately held for-profit business. As we've pointed out, anyone can sue anyone for anything. But I believe Google is free to set policies and determine how they rank web sites. They may have modeled this on DMCA, but they may be simply trying to deliver better quality, less spammy, less piratey, search results.
-
It has been my personal experience that Google rewards website owners who focus on building and creating legitimate high-quality content. With the exception of ELI, most of my websites are not considered "high traffic" or "high visibility". And yet, very frequently my articles/blog posts seem to turn up fairly high in Google searches.
Oscar's courtroomstrategy.com frequently gets discovered by all kinds of people due to his unique content.
Google continues to do a good job making it easier for the "little guy" that has high quality content to be seen in their search engines. It is a great equalizer.
-
Google has been fairly open about their DMCA removal policies for the past few years. The Chilling Effects website is a fascinating read about trends in DMCA removals and counternotifications. Google has been a faithful contributor to the database.
What they're announcing as new is that those removal notices are going to have an effect on their ranking algorithm, and perhaps they're hinting is that it would be a more direct effect than one would assume.
It makes sense that if a domain is repeatedly accused of copyright or trademark infringements, it's likely to be a low-quality operation of some sort.
-
It's a good idea in principle. However, it's bound to be abused.
Somebody could get your site de-listed, and it would take you at least two weeks, possibly a month or more to get it back up.
Just look at how DMCA's have been used suppress documents on ELI. I'm sure that Matt wouldn't like ELI to be de-listed by a troll for even a short length of time.
Imagine if you're running an e-commerce operation?
"Copyright" is beginning to be used in ways contrary to how it's intended.
How long before the "Linda Ellis's" start sending phony DMCA's to google in order to harass the "Aprils"?
It would be much better if the search engines required some proof before taking action, or at least gave the accused 7 business days to respond.
It's a terrible idea if no proof is required before the damage is done, in my opinion.
Additionally, most never register their content even if it's theirs, and therefore have no real proof.
Here's the link from 2007, btw. Some of the info is probably out of date, however.
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2007/09/20/the-dmca-on-7-search-engines/
Here's an even earlier one from 2005;
http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2005/09/28/the-dmca-and-google/
S.G.
-
I agree that it's a pain to be wrongfully accused and have Google remove one's site from result pages. The onus is on the accused to take action. However, the action is really not that difficult:
What To Do If Google Removes Your Content Because of A Bogus DMCA Complaint
The US congress made it very easy to ask search engines (and other Online Service Providers) to remove allegedly infringing content. However, congress also created a simple way for you to fight back.
All you have to do is send a counter-notification to the company that removed the content, usually Google. The Counter-Notification is just a letter that informs Google that the copyright infringement allegations are false and demands that the removed content be restored. A counter-notification is often called a "put-back notice."
After you send your counter-notification, Google will notify the original party who complained against you. Then Google will wait no more than 14 days to restore your content, UNLESS the original complainer files a lawsuit against you. If the original complainer (the third party who sent the take-down notice) files a lawsuit against you, then Google will refuse to restore the content. If the original complainer doesn't file a lawsuit, then Google will restore your content within 14 days.
So basically, if your site was removed because of a DMCA Complaint, the ball is in your court now. You've got to inform Google that it made a mistake by filing a counter-notification. It will restore your site, unless you get sued.
http://www.seomoz.org/blog/what-to-do-when-google-bans-your-site-because-of-a-bogus-dmca-takedown-notice
The search engines (or ISPs) require some proof, but do not make decisions about the legitimacy of the claim. The claim has to at least make sense, e.g. you can provide a URL that you claim is your intellectual property and another URL that you claim is an infringement of your intellectual property, and they can be visited to verify that at least the URLs do exist and that the infringement could exist.
I don't know if it would be better for the ISPs/SEs to require a higher standard of proof than an affidavit. It appears to me they prefer to stay out of the fray and let people duke it out in court.
S.G., you do make a good point about the impact it could have on an online business. If your site is down for a couple of weeks because of a bogus takedown claim, that's going to be a slim month for sales. I suppose one has the option of taking the accuser to court for filing a false DMCA removal request and sue for lost revenue and legal fees, but that's a huge hassle.
-
Great information, Moe. Thanks.
I must admit that it does sound good on paper.
But, I think that ELI must have received a couple dozen of these, aimed at Scribd documents.
None of which were legitimate. That must add up to at least two years of combined downtime on the content. Pretty staggering.
Hardly anyone is properly registering their content as it relates to use on the Internet.
So, I'm personally skeptical of the system as it now stands.
S.G.
-
The search engines (or ISPs) require some proof, but do not make decisions about the legitimacy of the claim. The claim has to at least make sense, e.g. you can provide a URL that you claim is your intellectual property and another URL that you claim is an infringement of your intellectual property, and they can be visited to verify that at least the URLs do exist and that the infringement could exist.
I don't know if it would be better for the ISPs/SEs to require a higher standard of proof than an affidavit. It appears to me they prefer to stay out of the fray and let people duke it out in court.
S.G., you do make a good point about the impact it could have on an online business. If your site is down for a couple of weeks because of a bogus takedown claim, that's going to be a slim month for sales. I suppose one has the option of taking the accuser to court for filing a false DMCA removal request and sue for lost revenue and legal fees, but that's a huge hassle.
I think you are incorrect on your first statement here. ISP's do not require any "proof" all that is required is the take down notice. It is not the ISP's job to determine if there is evidence, proof, or if in fact there was an infringement. Their only requirement is to take down the questionable content, notify the supposed infringer of the take down and notify the complaintant that the infringer was notified. Doing this satisfies the safe harbor provisions.
Now the ISP does have the option to ignore the request, but if they do and the complaint makes it to court, the ISP could also be held accountable for the infringement. I don't know of any ISP's that are going to go out of their way and spend their time looking to see if a claim is legitimate, I know as a hosting provider myself I wouldn't. It's simply not my job, and I'm certainly not in the position to police every one of my hosting accounts.. I get a takedown notice, the content comes down, plain and simple. If someone were to come after me as their hosting provider for damages, they would never win as I only followed the guidelines set out in the law.
Now Go-Daddy is a different beast, they just don't remove the content, they kill the entire hosting account, which in my view is completely over the top, but I think they have that clearly stated in their TOS.
I also think the biggest issue with getting "delisted" within google, would be proving damages, as Moe state it would be a huge hassle, ands you'd have to sue for attorney fees and damages" ie lost income..how many people could actually prove damages?? just because your numbers may be way off isn't going to be proof enough. You'd have to be super anal, like myself to really have a chance at proving this. for example I get at least 4 calls per week from potential clients that find me thur google, I ask every single caller how they found me, and it gets noted in their file, which is created while I'm talking with them that first time. I think it would be a good bet that if I got de-listed from a bogus complaint from a competitor, and I sued them I might win the damages...."Might" and "IF" can be to scary words however..
-
Good discussion.
If I recall correctly there's a DMCA lawsuit court precedent (if anyone's interested, I'll provide a link).
It's considered as a landmark case and it's kind of the de-facto standard of what to expect from such a case at this time.
The finding was that the plaintiff (a victim of a false DMCA takedown), was entitled to have their content re-instated, and they collected all attorney's fees.
No other damages were awarded.
I agree with BuddhaPi that lawsuits can be a big pain, risky, and something like this would be difficult to prove.
However, modern e-commerce systems collect and process a lot of data. A smart (and angry person) might be able to leverage this.
I think that a strong case might include traffic statistics from before and after a de-listing, tied into sales/profits.
In theory, it should be easy to show how many impressions and completed transactions arrived from google prior to a DMCA takedown, and a comparison could be made to the conditions after the DMCA takedown.
It's worth mentioning that many lawyers and judges might have a difficult time grasping such concepts. So, it would be an uphill battle, as BuddhaPi rightly points out.
Filing a successful lawsuit on the basis of this may be out of the question for individuals or small businesses.
However, large companies can and do file all the time. Imagine that an important corporate site was de-listed on the day of a major product launch?
All this will be interesting to watch, as people and organizations attempt to apply copyright as part of strategic business plans.
S.G.
-
SG, I would be interested in reading the precedent and would very much appreciate you posting the link. While I do not know enough yet to feel I can contribute meaningfully to the current discussion I do read everything that's posted and like to check out court cases, precedents and the like when cited.
Good discussion.
If I recall correctly there's a DMCA lawsuit court precedent (if anyone's interested, I'll provide a link).
It's considered as a landmark case and it's kind of the de-facto standard of what to expect from such a case at this time.
The finding was that the plaintiff (a victim of a false DMCA takedown), was entitled to have their content re-instated, and they collected all attorney's fees.
No other damages were awarded.
I agree with BuddhaPi that lawsuits can be a big pain, risky, and something like this would be difficult to prove.
However, modern e-commerce systems collect and process a lot of data. A smart (and angry person) might be able to leverage this.
I think that a strong case might include traffic statistics from before and after a de-listing, tied into sales/profits.
In theory, it should be easy to show how many impressions and completed transactions arrived from google prior to a DMCA takedown, and a comparison could be made to the conditions after the DMCA takedown.
It's worth mentioning that many lawyers and judges might have a difficult time grasping such concepts. So, it would be an uphill battle, as BuddhaPi rightly points out.
Filing a successful lawsuit on the basis of this may be out of the question for individuals or small businesses.
However, large companies can and do file all the time. Imagine that an important corporate site was de-listed on the day of a major product launch?
All this will be interesting to watch, as people and organizations attempt to apply copyright as part of strategic business plans.
S.G.
-
Buddhapi, I spoke wrong when used the word "proof". What Google requires is a verifiable complaint. If you tell them what the valid URL is supposed to be and what the offending URL is supposed to be, they basically check to make sure the URLs exist and that the infringement could be possible. They do turn down some requests; for example, if they find that the alleged infringement simply does not exist or if the infringing party took it down voluntarily before Google was going to take action.
I guess it's a bare minimum standard of proof — it has to check out at the most basic level. They're not going to de-list people if the complaint is clearly inaccurate or obviously false.
There's been precedents for wrongful use of the DMCA removal. Here's an example from 2004:
Diebold is the first company to be held liable for violating section 512(f) of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which makes it unlawful to use DMCA takedown threats when the copyright holder knows that infringement has not actually occurred. The section also stipulates that anyone who issues such frivolous threats must pay damages, including costs and attorneys' fees, to those harmed by the misrepresentations.
https://www.eff.org/press/archives/2004/10/15
-
I disagree with the contention that a "verifiable complaint" in the context that Moe stated should be form of "proof" (sufficient enough to take action).
Even though that's what actually happens... "an infringement might exist, so you're disabled until you prove otherwise."
The fact that a web page "exists" and a piece of content "exists", should not even be a test for a legitimate complaint.
That's like saying that because I have a car, that I must be guilty of speeding.
In the case of Diebold, I should mention that they paid a settlement.
It was a "loss" for Diebold, but it didn't set a practical court precedent that could influence future court decisions in terms of what "damages" should be paid:
"in Online Policy Group v. Diebold, Inc., 337 F. Supp. 2d 1195 (N.D. Cal. 2004), two students and their ISP sued voting machine manufacturer Diebold after it tried to use DMCA takedown notices to disable access to Internet postings of the company's leaked internal email archive. The court granted summary judgment to the students and ISP on their claim, finding that portions of the email archive were so clearly subject to the fair use defense that "[n]o reasonable copyright holder could have believed that [they] were protected by copyright." According to the EFF, Diebold subsequently agreed to pay $125,000 in damages and fees to settle the lawsuit."
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/responding-dmca-takedown-notice-targeting-your-content
I'm looking up that other case for Greg, which does provide guidance as to damages...
S.G.
-
ok... as per Greg's request for citation, here's the lawsuit over a bogus DMCA takedown that I was referring to:
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Lenz.2.25.order.pdf
With some analysis:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/standards_for_5.htm
"Judge Fogel has defined some standards for computing damages in a 17 USC 512(f) case, which creates a cause of action for sending certain types of bogus copyright takedown notices. I can't recall another case discussing the damages requirements of a 512(f) claim"...
In short, legal fees were awarded to the plaintiff because the DMCA notice was bogus.
---
I can see that this is relatively new legal ground, akin to how the legal status of online infringements remained until very recently.
I see the whole DMCA legal issue as being quite "loose" (for lack of a better term), because many of the concepts haven't been rigorously tested in the courts.
I have no doubt that things will "tighten up" up a lot after a few legal battles, especially in terms of what constitutes proof or due process.
All this is beginning to heat up...
S.G.
-
Thanks for posting this SG, I will read them over when I get home from work this afternoon :)
ok... as per Greg's request for citation, here's the lawsuit over a bogus DMCA takedown that I was referring to:
http://thepriorart.typepad.com/the_prior_art/files/Lenz.2.25.order.pdf
With some analysis:
http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2010/02/standards_for_5.htm
"Judge Fogel has defined some standards for computing damages in a 17 USC 512(f) case, which creates a cause of action for sending certain types of bogus copyright takedown notices. I can't recall another case discussing the damages requirements of a 512(f) claim"...
In short, legal fees were awarded to the plaintiff because the DMCA notice was bogus.
---
I can see that this is relatively new legal ground, akin to how the legal status of online infringements remained until very recently.
I see the whole DMCA legal issue as being quite "loose" (for lack of a better term), because many of the concepts haven't been rigorously tested in the courts.
I have no doubt that things will "tighten up" up a lot after a few legal battles, especially in terms of what constitutes proof or due process.
All this is beginning to heat up...
S.G.
-
Good links, S.G. That's the other famous case regarding bogus DMCA removals. The issue of "damages" was a bit vague because Lenz didn't really take a financial hit from having her cute video taken down. Universal also tried to argue that she had no damages because the EFF represented her pro bono.
Here's another interesting opinion on Lenz v. Universal:
A preliminary read on the decision indicates that Lenz can recover legal fees associated with fighting the takedown, but not necessarily fees connected with the cost of pursuing Universal for damages in follow-up litigation. To really sock it to Universal, Lenz would have to make a claim under a code that awards fees at the court's discretion. To do that, she will likely need to show that Universal knowingly misrepresented its initial claim.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/01/us-lawsuit-idUSTRE6200QZ20100301?type=technologyNews
I think the message is that the party filing a DMCA complaint should check to see it's really an infringement before they launch the takedown machine or they could end up paying to say they're sorry. The wrongly accused party should not expect to get real rich from it either.
I think it's an okay standard, but I still agree with S.G. that hitting someone with a bogus takedown is a good way to be a pain in their ass. If someone does that to you, you have to respond and you have to respond proactively. If they're real jerks about it, it may end you up in court. Who needs that?
It really shouldn't be as easy as "he's copying me, I swear", but that's the way the system works right now. The providers wash their hands in the deal and take the "safe harbor", and why shouldn't they? It makes their life a whole lot easier to just comply with the takedown requests.
I'm looking to see if there's any cases where someone intentionally lied in a DMCA removal request and got in trouble for it. I will post if I find anything, it really wouldn't surprise me if someone did attempt to use it as an SEO Black Hat smart-bomb.
-
As promised, here's a link to some interesting thoughts about DMCA removal abuse:
Google notes that, “From time to time, we may receive inaccurate or unjustified copyright removal requests for search results that clearly do not link to infringing content,” adding that it does not comply with such requests. How many of these requests are there? According to Google, “We removed 97% of search results specified in requests that we received between July and December 2011.” That means that out of all the requests Google receives, only 3% were sent by mistake or in bad faith.
http://www.copyhype.com/2012/05/rumors-of-copyright-abuse-have-been-greatly-exaggerated/
-
Well... someone using a bot was copying my blog.
http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/
(I should mention, I also blogged about the event.)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/newsblur-a-modest-proposal/
-
Good posting by Lucia, and neat script.
The point that people do take other's work is driven home here.
Not sure if Lucia's into this sort of thing, but she'd probably be able to run a successful consulting business that prevents and tracks these sort of actions.
S.G>
-
Who'd pay? :)
-
By the way: I'm perturbed by this situation because this isn't just a garden variety scraper with a blogspot splog making money selling google ads. This appears to be a "hot new thing" with some venture capital funding and which is selling "premium memberships" to people who use the service. I really think it's important for these "hot new things" to understand that if their "product" is -- essentially-- pulling together content others created and putting a nice bow on it, they should approach the content creators with a monetary offer. The pretty bow is nice and everything-- and it may well be that the pretty bow makes customers willing to pay for product. But still.... In this particular case there actually is a principle involved.
-
lucia,
I clicked the link that you provided and saw your message pop up before I was redirected and I think that was awesome! I especially like how you redirected back to your site. Great work! ;D
Well... someone using a bot was copying my blog.
http://www.newsblur.com/site/1100897/
(I should mention, I also blogged about the event.)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2012/newsblur-a-modest-proposal/
-
Greg Troy (KeepFighting)
The reason it's possible to redirect is that they are copying my whole page. They are copying the human readable content, the html mark up, the links to my javascript resources, links to my cascade style sheets etc. Because they copy the javascript which humans would not see when reading the page normally, the redirect works at the new destination!
All day, I have marveled at this company. I found this image:
<a href="http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HighlightOfNovPriorities.jpg" rel="nofollow"><img src="http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/HighlightOfNovPriorities-386x500.jpg" alt="" title="HighlightOfNovPriorities" width="386" height="500" class="aligncenter size-medium wp-image-20462" /></a>
Note I circled something that reads "Fix Frame Buster Buster". If so, I may have busted their frame-buster-buster. )
If so, I wrote a frame-buster-buster-buster! Though, of course they may eventually escalate to a frame-buster-buster-buster- buster. :)
-
lucia,
that is too funny and where did you find that picture at?
-
Greg/Troy,
I found it here:
http://www.ofbrooklyn.com/2010/11/3/hacker-news-effect-post-mortem/
-
Here we see how Google's new scheme can be used in a negative way, as I mentioned earlier.
One company is using Google's DMCA scheme as a way to hurt the sales of another company.
Dragons’ Den Company DMCAs Google To Censor Competitor
http://torrentfreak.com/dragons-den-company-dmcas-google-to-censor-competitor-120812/
It's also interesting that Google applies US law to non-US companies?
While I realize that Google is a US corporation, the Web is world-wide... we will see this point in future litigations?
S.G.