Google to start devaluing sites

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Moe Hacken]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Greg Troy (KeepFighting)]

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.

[Robert Krausankas (BuddhaPi)]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Moe Hacken]

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.

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Moe Hacken]

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.

[Moe Hacken]

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)]

[SoylentGreen]

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.

[Jerry Witt (mcfilms)]

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.

[Matthew Chan]

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.

[Moe Hacken]

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.