Google Inadvertently Protecting (and Funding) Content Thieves

An entry by teli on 07/11/2007

What a day. I was so frustrated I needed to take a long hot shower to calm myself down. I guess, in some sick and twisted way, I should be flattered that someone found my content worthy of duplication. But, I’m not. I’m pissed.

This splogger actually had the audacity to copy/paste pages of content from my site verbatim. He couldn’t just scrape it from the feed because I only use excerpts on that blog; In order to get the full content, he would actually need to visit my site directly and scrape it from there. To make things worse, it wasn’t just one or two pages, it was 20+. (I know, I know. At least it wasn’t hundreds or thousands.)

I decided to contact Blogger about it and I followed their form process and thought everything would be peachy; they’d get my e-mail report, have a look at the website and clearly see that it was just ripped content for financial gain (yea…AdSense, surprise, surprise), and then nuke the blog to splog hell. Hmmm…couldn’t be more wrong. Things don’t work like that in Google-land.

Now, I’m not bad-mouthing Google. I use at least one of their services everyday, and I believe the company, as a whole, does a tremendous amount of good, however, they make it incredibly arduous for a legitimate webmaster to report a violation of their copyright. On top of that, they’re slowly, but surely, losing sight of their “do no evil” motto. Allowing sploggers to steal content and making it difficult for legit webmasters to get the issue resolved is pretty “evil” to me.

You see, as soon as I filled out the form, I received an automated e-mail response:

Hi there,

Thank you for your note. It is our policy to respond to notices of alleged infringement that comply with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (the text of which can be found at the U.S. Copyright Office website: http://lcWeb.loc.gov/copyright/ ) and other applicable intellectual property laws, which may include removing or disabling access to material claimed to be the subject of infringing activity.

To file a notice of infringement with us, you must provide a written communication (by fax or regular mail, not by email) that sets forth the items specified below. Please note that pursuant to that Act, you may be liable to the alleged infringer for damages including costs and attorneys’ fees) if you materially misrepresent that you own an item when you in fact do not. Indeed, in a recent case (please see http://www.onlinepolicy.org/action/legpolicy/opg_v_diebold/ for more information), a company that sent an infringement notification seeking removal of online materials that were protected by the fair use doctrine was ordered to pay such costs and attorneys fees. The company agreed to pay over $100,000. Accordingly, if you are not sure whether material available online infringes your copyright, we suggest that you first contact an attorney.

To expedite our ability to process your request, please use the following format (including section numbers):

1. Identify in sufficient detail the copyrighted work that you believe has been infringed upon. This must include identification of specific posts, as opposed to entire sites. Posts must be referenced by either the dates in which they appear or the permalink of the post. For example, http://example.blogspot.com/archives/2003_01_21_example_archive.html#2104575.

2. Identify the material that you claim is infringing upon the copyrighted work listed in item #1 above.

YOU MUST IDENTIFY EACH POST BY PERMALINK OR DATE THAT ALLEGEDLY CONTAINS INFRINGING MATERIAL. The permalink for a post is usually found by clicking on the timestamp of the post.

3. Provide information reasonably sufficient to permit Blogger to contact you (email address is preferred).

4. Include the following statement: “I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above on the allegedly infringing web pages is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.”

5. Include the following statement: “I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.”

6. Sign the paper.

7. Send the written communication to the following address:

Google, Inc.
Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA complaints
1600 Amphitheatre Pkwy
Mountain View, CA 94043

OR Fax to:

(650) 618-2680, Attn: Blogger Legal Support, DMCA complaints

Sincerely,
The Blogger Team

Ooookkkkaaaay. What?

So, someone is blatantly ripping off my content — and not just a page or two here or there…an entire section — and I need to spend two hours of my life tracking down every instance of infringement, cross reference it with my own entries, type it up in a neat letter (annotating sections, mind you), print it, sign it and mail (or fax) it? They don’t even include a toll-free fax number.

The only thing this tells me is that if I want to make some money by stealing someone else’s content, I just need to create a Blogger blog and sit on it because Google will defend my right to be a content thief to the end. They’d even fund it through their AdSense program.

Not only that, they’ll try and scare away some novice webmasters who really don’t understand what their allusion to “fair use” means. Seeing that $100,000 price tag would scare them off and make them think twice about sending in the info and just let the content thief go about his business.

In my case, it wouldn’t be hard for someone with half a braincell to figure out it was a case of content theft considering the the splogger actually copied everything including my byline and content making direct reference to my site.

It would be nice if Google could have a human review the copyright complaints to see if it has any basis before making the webmaster jump through all those hoops — seeing as how Blogger is the home of, like, 90% of all scraper splogs.

So, while my complaint works its way through Google red tape, the splogger is earning money (through AdSense of all places) off my hard work. *sigh*

(By the way, I jumped through the hoops and opted to fax in my complaint. I’m just waiting to see how long it takes to resolve the issue.)

Update: Woohoo, the offending pages are all gone. It seems that Google finally reacted to my Fax and it only took them 12 hours. I’m rather impressed (but still pretty dismayed I even had to go through all the trouble).

Update…again: It seems Google had nothing to do with removing the spam compiled pages. It was the blogger himself (which has remained awfully quiet). Seems that he checked his Technorati backlinks which lead him to my entry, he got scared and pulled the pages from the site. I just received a message from Google to the fact — so, all things considered, it would have taken Google nearly 48 hours to remove the offending pages. I’m no longer “rather impressed”. And not surprisingly, the blog is still up.

# | Leave your comment | Filed in: Geekie Stuff, Mild Insanity

15 Responses to “Google Inadvertently Protecting (and Funding) Content Thieves”

  1. Pandora Says:

    Evol, evol, evol.

    Stupid companies. I mean, really. Don’t they have enough money to hire someone to READ those emails?! Considering what people generally put on blogger and blogspot… (;

    (Don’t get me wrong, there are some really WELL DONE blogs there, but - not - a lot… (; )

  2. teli Says:

    That’s exactly what I said. But, I guess Big Co.™ will never change.

  3. Pandora Says:

    Looks as if not. BAH!
    Sometimes…
    I wonder if government and big companies take lessons on screwing the little guy - from the same place…

  4. teli Says:

    Oh, they do. I’m certain of it.

    In Google’s case, they didn’t start out that way. They were approached in a dark alley by one of the teachers and smooth-talked into taking the course. Sad, really.

  5. Jonathan Bailey Says:

    Though I understand your frustration with Google’s policies here, I have to offer them at least an iota of defense.

    The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) requires that hosts take certain steps to avoid being held liable for copyright infringement. All that they were doing is requiring you to file a formal DMCA notice.

    If they didn’t do that, they could be held liable for chilling free speech. Several hosts have been taken to task for that.

    I’m no fan of Google’s DMCA policy, especially the part that requires a physical signature, but they are only following the law as it exists. They could make changes and improvements, but the requirement of the DMCA notice would not and can not go away.

    I’m sorry that you had to go through all of that, but I am very glad that you got the works removed!

  6. Joseph Says:

    Great story! Not to have lived through it, but to have had the control and self-insight to keep the matter and this post balanced.

    There are more than a few things that bug me about the blogger platform - the idea that someone could do some of things you suggest and hide behind anonymity is the most disconcerting.

    Glad to hear things worked out for you in the end.

  7. teli Says:

    @Jonathan,
    I know you’re right about the formal DMCA, but what bugs me about it is the fact that Google actually throws a “scare tactic” in there.

    Some smaller webmasters (who may not be able to afford an attorney consultation) can be getting completely ripped off, but think that “fair use” means a blogger can use their content in its entirety.

    And that whole thing about requiring a hard signature and not being able to e-mail it just makes the process even longer and possibly more problematic for overseas webmasters.

    Like I said (but I’m not a lawyer), couldn’t it just be feasible to allow a formal DMCA complaint to be filed via e-mail, maybe by filling out a PDF form and submitting it with the necessary info.

    Also, needing to document every instance of URL? What happens for splogs that have stolen hundreds or thousands of pages of content? I was lucky, there were only about 20, but even that small number was difficult to compile.

    And probably the most unsettling part of it is that the site is still online despite having blatantly violated the Blogger Terms of Service (which does allow Blogger to delete the entire blog), and the rest of the content looks like it was ripped from some other unsuspecting webmaster.

    Gah, if I keep thinking about it, I’ll just get myself all worked up again. LOL

    In any event, I want to say thank you for coming by and offering another side to the story. :D

    ~ Teli

  8. teli Says:

    @Joseph,
    Thanks. There are plenty of things that I dislike about Blogger, but for the most part, it does have its bright points and some good bloggers using it.

    I’m just glad I was able to get this situation sorted quickly.

  9. Jonathan Bailey Says:

    I have to agree that the “scare tactic” is a bit superflous. Google has had a real problem with people filing false DMCA notices, a quick check of Chilling Effects proves that, but I agree that the steps they go to is unnecessary. It seems, to me, that the DMCA notice itself should give people enough reason to pause.

    Still, my greatest grievance is the requirement of a physical signature. I’ve talked about it before on my site. I can only think of one other host, out of over 100 I’ve worked with, Lunarpages, that has the same requirement. It goes against the ESIGN act and seems, to me, to put their safe harbor status in jeopardy.

    What I’ve done in the past is prepare a scanned PDF and email it to the blogger abuse team. I have their email somewhere around here. That’s worked well.

    It is worth noting that the identifying each work allegedly infringing is a requirement of the DMCA so the list of URLs is fairly standard. My advice, only give a sample of about 10 or 20 and then, if that doesn’t work, complain about the next set. Keep doing that until they give up. It’s worked before.

    As far as the site still being online, I can offer no reasons for that. I was once optimistic about Google’s stand on spam, that is no longer the case.

    Sad, but true.

    Hope that this helps!

  10. teli Says:

    It does, thank you. By the way, is it alright if I e-mail you for that Blogger e-mail address? I’m fairly certain this isn’t and won’t be the last instance of some splogger “borrowing” my content for financial gain.

    ~ Teli

  11. Jonathan Bailey Says:

    According to their registration with the USCO, the address is amac@google.com. I assume that AMAC stands for their DMCA agent, Alexander MacGillivray.

    That should do it…

    (Note: This may work for other Google properties such as Google Search or Adsense, no idea as of yet)

  12. Jonathan Bailey Says:

    Oops, didn’t see the offer to email me. Sorry about that misread. There’s the email if you need it, feel free to email me with anything else though!

  13. teli Says:

    Thanks a bunch, Jonathan. You’re like a super-sleuth.

    I’ll certainly e-mail you if there’s anything else. :D

    ~ Teli

  14. Joseph Says:

    Great info! On a somewhat related matter, what happens when a gripeblog emerges on the Blogger platform that works on the likeness of design, wordmarks, logos and content to cause commercial detriment? I guess in such cases, the claim on infringement would be even that much more complicated - even to contest as inappropriate and/or report for its removal?

  15. Clara Says:

    Teli-

    I just started using this plugin. Puts a copyright notice in your feed so it might discourage others from using it for that.