(8)
A DigitalPoint Forums discussion has several cases of Yahoo! Publisher Network publishers being banned in the past day or so from the contextual program. The thread believes there is now a round of YPN cuts, bans, going around at this time.
YPN is known to be very strict on the publishers they (1) allow in and (2) keep in the program, when compared with other contextual advertising programs.
I'll be specific and make Google look bad.
I often spot people scraping content on this site, sometimes, if I have time, I'll try to do something about it.
The other day I wrote an article named Forum Hack Enables Google AdSense Code To Be Placed On Site. Soon after, I saw via a blog search engine, the same content on this site (nofollow added -[sc]) with my content on it. So I figured I would email my AdSense rep to let him know. His response;
Thank you very much for bringing this to my attention. If you would like to file a formal complaint, I have to ask you to fill out the DMCA paperwork. This is the best way for Google AdSense to resolve conflicts such as these.
Um, you see this person is making a mockery of your contextual ad program, named AdSense. But yet you don't want to remove him? Instead you put it on an other publisher to do the work? YPN, I know, would jump on this are remove it asap, if I reported it.
I told Google because I thought they would want to improve the quality of their contextual program. If I wanted to, I could have filed a DMCA originally and not informed Google right away about it.
Forum discussion at DigitalPoint Forums.
Comments:
Ed
10/31/2006 01:20 pm
How did you make them look bad? It is not the contextual advertising provider responsibility to pass judgement on this issue. Who knows if you gave the other publisher written offline persmission or not to reprint your content? How can they just assume the other person ripped your site? I found the response to request you fill out a formal complaint to be quite appropiate. I would found it highly inappropiate if they done something like ask you to review their copyright position before posting it on their corporate blog. I don't think you made them look bad. You only demostrated they handled your claim in a professional maner.
Barry Schwartz
10/31/2006 01:40 pm
It is clear that the content on that site is stolen. The only purpose of that site is to generate clicks from AdSense. They have a name for these sites. These are the type of sites AdWords advertisers do not want clicks from. Google had an opp to do something about it, and they gave me this. Legally, they are right - but still.
jim
10/31/2006 03:58 pm
I was kicked out for stealing content and the funny thing is, I wasn't running YPN on any of my sites. When I emailed them about what content on any of my sites that was illegal, they merely said they couldn't disclose it. It's a bunch of BS but it hardly bothers me considering I'm not even using them! Just a funny anecdote.
Barry Schwartz
10/31/2006 04:07 pm
Wow, they go above and beyond. ;-)
Dan Abbamont
10/31/2006 04:14 pm
In my experience, they've been terrible when it comes to dealing with crooked publishers. Of course, that was on the matter of click fraud and improperly targetted ads and not on copyright. I think it's important to consider that from a publisher standpoint, the only really good reason to use YPN is that you were banned from AdSense. (IMHO)
fathom
11/01/2006 02:26 am
"It is clear that the content on that site is stolen." It is? According to who? The problem revolves around liability. DMCA protects Google from claims of liability (from all parties involved) but without a valid DMCA TakeDown Order the alleged infringer could argue coercion in a court of law... and win. e.g. If Google acted without receiving a valid takedown for alleged infringement of copyright, they would void their own rights under DMCA Title II and become an active party of the dispute. Such an act could be used to show you and Google conspiring against the other party. While you indeed may have common copyright and the only valid claim to the work... you can't expect another company preserve your rights - that's your job.
Barry Schwartz
11/01/2006 02:28 am
Fathom, This is obvious in this case. There is no gray area at all in this case. That is the bottom line.
fathom
11/01/2006 03:52 am
Not disputing your claim - disputing the method you chose to enforce your claim. Here's the obvious... "Prove It"! (that's the only thing that matters). I agree, it is ABSOLUTELY Black & White... legally you have no current prima facie evidence to support your claim and so long as that is your position, the alleged infringer can do as they wish... with your blessing.