How can I stop these people from copying my site?
April 2, 2008 7:27 AM Subscribe
I have been alerted to the fact that this site is reproducing the content of Languagehat without attribution. I can't find any way to contact them. Is there anything I can do about this?
Send a DMCA notification to their hosting provider. According to netcraft the hosting provider who owns the IP address is Telco Advertising Inc.
posted by delmoi at 7:33 AM on April 2, 2008
posted by delmoi at 7:33 AM on April 2, 2008
The whois has some contact info on there which might be useful.
posted by jmd82 at 7:34 AM on April 2, 2008
posted by jmd82 at 7:34 AM on April 2, 2008
Here's the Whois info:
TAD AUKER
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
Registered through: Web Marketing Concepts LLC
Domain Name: BUSINESS-OF-LANGUAGE.COM
Created on: 22-Sep-06
Expires on: 22-Sep-08
Last Updated on: 25-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
Technical Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WEB-MARKETING-CONCEPTS.COM
NS2.WEB-MARKETING-CONCEPTS.COM
The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Current Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
IP Address: 209.47.167.180 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: CA(CANADA)-QUEBEC-GATINEAU
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache
Lock Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Secure: No
E-commerce: No
Traffic Ranking: Not available
Data as of: 23-Jan-2008
Looks like Tad is a Sgt. Maj. in The National Guard.
posted by Floydd at 7:36 AM on April 2, 2008
TAD AUKER
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
Registered through: Web Marketing Concepts LLC
Domain Name: BUSINESS-OF-LANGUAGE.COM
Created on: 22-Sep-06
Expires on: 22-Sep-08
Last Updated on: 25-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
Technical Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
Domain servers in listed order:
NS1.WEB-MARKETING-CONCEPTS.COM
NS2.WEB-MARKETING-CONCEPTS.COM
The previous information has been obtained either directly from the registrant or a registrar of the domain name other than Network Solutions. Network Solutions, therefore, does not guarantee its accuracy or completeness.
Current Registrar: WILD WEST DOMAINS, INC.
IP Address: 209.47.167.180 (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
IP Location: CA(CANADA)-QUEBEC-GATINEAU
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache
Lock Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Secure: No
E-commerce: No
Traffic Ranking: Not available
Data as of: 23-Jan-2008
Looks like Tad is a Sgt. Maj. in The National Guard.
posted by Floydd at 7:36 AM on April 2, 2008
(btw, this looks kind of like a spam site, Matt ought to consider putting a nofollow relation attribute on your link). It isn't getting any traffic at all (according to alexa) and probably just exists to drive up some other site's page rank.
posted by delmoi at 7:37 AM on April 2, 2008
posted by delmoi at 7:37 AM on April 2, 2008
I see that you don't have a Creative Commons license on the site right now - did you ever use one? This problem comes up a lot with people who use some of the more permissive CC licenses, which makes it perfectly legal for others to reprint their stuff without attribution.
(You can require attribution, non-commercial use, etc with CC licenses as well)
posted by chrisamiller at 7:40 AM on April 2, 2008
(You can require attribution, non-commercial use, etc with CC licenses as well)
posted by chrisamiller at 7:40 AM on April 2, 2008
Rights for Artists is an excellent resource about online copyrights. It contains sample Cease and Desist notices, letters to site hosts, and other advisories.
posted by netbros at 7:42 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
posted by netbros at 7:42 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
The same thing happened to my blog. They were using a Wordpress plugin to display the entries from the RSS feed. I think we blocked their IP with Apache.
posted by clearlydemon at 8:14 AM on April 2, 2008
posted by clearlydemon at 8:14 AM on April 2, 2008
While waiting for these other solutions to work out (vote for contacting the hosting provider), you could go the fun, if slightly passive-aggressive route. Your mastery of language should make it fairly easy to embed hidden phrases, disclaimers or admonishments, whether obfuscated by vocabulary, or by simple "first letter of every sentence spells 'This is stolen'" type messages.
If you were extra clever, you could use the fact that his alignment and format are slightly different than yours, so that the messages (first letter of every line) only show up on his site, with its specific formatting.
"For some values of x, use y.
There are some common problems with
this solution, but knowing what others
have stumbled over, you might find it
easier to solve this, and other equations.
Use your head!"
becomes
"For some values of x,
use y. There are some
common problems with this solution, but
knowing what others have stumbled over,
you might find it easier to solve this, and
other equations.
Use your head!"
This would take a lot of work, but may be a fun exercise. A text version of those anti-image leech hacks.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 9:30 AM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
If you were extra clever, you could use the fact that his alignment and format are slightly different than yours, so that the messages (first letter of every line) only show up on his site, with its specific formatting.
"For some values of x, use y.
There are some common problems with
this solution, but knowing what others
have stumbled over, you might find it
easier to solve this, and other equations.
Use your head!"
becomes
"For some values of x,
use y. There are some
common problems with this solution, but
knowing what others have stumbled over,
you might find it easier to solve this, and
other equations.
Use your head!"
This would take a lot of work, but may be a fun exercise. A text version of those anti-image leech hacks.
posted by JeremiahBritt at 9:30 AM on April 2, 2008 [2 favorites]
2nding DMCA take down notice. Has worked like a charm every time I've used it.
posted by toomuchpete at 9:58 AM on April 2, 2008
posted by toomuchpete at 9:58 AM on April 2, 2008
Best answer: RSS: Really Simple Syndication. He's syndicating your feed. Nowhere on your site that I can find have you placed any restrictions on how that feed may be used.
The fact that the "read more" link goes to your site counts, in common internet usage, as attribution. I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it does. Both this form of attribution and this use of RSS have already been debated to death so I'm really not going there.
I'm a fan of the DMCA but in this case, I think what you need is a creative commons license you're happy with and and a notice of such license, distributed as a blog post through RSS.
If your friend there doesn't comply with the terms of your new license, then either file the DMCA or tell him to bugger off using traditional Apache hand signals and .htaccess.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:46 AM on April 2, 2008
The fact that the "read more" link goes to your site counts, in common internet usage, as attribution. I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it does. Both this form of attribution and this use of RSS have already been debated to death so I'm really not going there.
I'm a fan of the DMCA but in this case, I think what you need is a creative commons license you're happy with and and a notice of such license, distributed as a blog post through RSS.
If your friend there doesn't comply with the terms of your new license, then either file the DMCA or tell him to bugger off using traditional Apache hand signals and .htaccess.
posted by DarlingBri at 10:46 AM on April 2, 2008
FYI, this site says there's ~183 domains hosted on that IP address (209.47.167.180), the first couple of which all look like thing-thing-otherthing.com domains.
The first one I checked is registered to the same person as the first WHOIS here, so, yeah, spam/content farm of some sort. Start a site, use other people's RSS for content, put Google ads on it, rinse, cycle, repeat.
posted by bhance at 11:49 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
The first one I checked is registered to the same person as the first WHOIS here, so, yeah, spam/content farm of some sort. Start a site, use other people's RSS for content, put Google ads on it, rinse, cycle, repeat.
posted by bhance at 11:49 AM on April 2, 2008 [1 favorite]
Response by poster: Thanks, everyone! As should be obvious, I'm a babe in the woods when it comes to this stuff, and I know nothing about Creative Commons licenses. I'll send the guy a pleasant e-mail asking him to stop using my content and see if I get a response. If not, I'll try some of the more labor-intensive stuff.
The fact that the "read more" link goes to your site counts, in common internet usage, as attribution. I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it does. Both this form of attribution and this use of RSS have already been debated to death so I'm really not going there.
Thanks, that's very informative.
posted by languagehat at 1:51 PM on April 2, 2008
The fact that the "read more" link goes to your site counts, in common internet usage, as attribution. I'm not saying it should; I'm saying it does. Both this form of attribution and this use of RSS have already been debated to death so I'm really not going there.
Thanks, that's very informative.
posted by languagehat at 1:51 PM on April 2, 2008
It is like whack a mole trying to stop the damn splogs - I have run into this problem with a few business blogs I manage. Essentially, what DarlingBri said. One alternative you might consider - I have limited the rss feeds to the post title and the first 100 words of the post, and that has cut down on the number of splogs finding the feeds attractive. Of course, this path is not for everyone because some readers may unsubscribe to your feed if they don't get the full post - but it works for my corporate clients who see the content duplication by sploggers as the greater evil. FWIW, we did not notice any change in subscribers on the main feed readers nor did we get any complaints.
Discussions:
Partial vs Full RSS Feeds
And another: Partial vs Full RSS Feeds
posted by madamjujujive at 2:51 PM on April 2, 2008
Discussions:
Partial vs Full RSS Feeds
And another: Partial vs Full RSS Feeds
posted by madamjujujive at 2:51 PM on April 2, 2008
languagehat, glad you found that useful. Since you are a self-confessed babe in the woods, I just need to backtrack to the most basic element of this and check something:
You do understand that your are publishing a publicly available RSS feed of your blog posts, yes?
posted by DarlingBri at 4:30 PM on April 2, 2008
You do understand that your are publishing a publicly available RSS feed of your blog posts, yes?
posted by DarlingBri at 4:30 PM on April 2, 2008
Response by poster: Yes, I finally added one after being pestered by enough people. Apparently that's what all the kids use to read blogs these days, though I prefer the old-fashioned approach of actually going to the blog.
posted by languagehat at 6:04 PM on April 2, 2008
posted by languagehat at 6:04 PM on April 2, 2008
Marvellous. Just checking!
posted by DarlingBri at 7:35 PM on April 2, 2008
posted by DarlingBri at 7:35 PM on April 2, 2008
I'm a fan of the DMCA but in this case, I think what you need is a creative commons license you're happy with and and a notice of such license, distributed as a blog post through RSS.
You don't need a CC license, or any other copyright notice on your blog in order to send takedown notices. I'd be surprised if spammers actually paid attention to them.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 PM on April 2, 2008
You don't need a CC license, or any other copyright notice on your blog in order to send takedown notices. I'd be surprised if spammers actually paid attention to them.
posted by delmoi at 10:50 PM on April 2, 2008
Best answer: bhance and others have it right, this is a wordpress RSS-to-blog spam engine, where they put in matching keywords they think will make money with adsense (in this case, "language") and they pull in any RSS content they can find to populate their site with content.
There are a few things you can do.
1. Contact the domain owner and tell him to stop syndicating your content immediately. Just because you offer a RSS file doesn't imply someone can reproduce that with ads all over it without your permission.
2. File a DMCA complaint with the ISP/host. This is a pain in the ass, but it's the next step.
3. You can report the adsense owner to google as someone doing this. In the lame business that these guys operate in, it's called DFA or Designed For Adsense and Google wants to rid the world of these spamblog DFA sites, especially those where the creator writes nothing at all.
I've had all my blogs show up on spamblogs in searches and it's really frustrating as the domain owners almost never even respond or reply. They basically setup thousands of these things and make enough pennies on each blog that it adds up eventually into money for nothing.
posted by mathowie at 11:43 PM on April 2, 2008
There are a few things you can do.
1. Contact the domain owner and tell him to stop syndicating your content immediately. Just because you offer a RSS file doesn't imply someone can reproduce that with ads all over it without your permission.
2. File a DMCA complaint with the ISP/host. This is a pain in the ass, but it's the next step.
3. You can report the adsense owner to google as someone doing this. In the lame business that these guys operate in, it's called DFA or Designed For Adsense and Google wants to rid the world of these spamblog DFA sites, especially those where the creator writes nothing at all.
I've had all my blogs show up on spamblogs in searches and it's really frustrating as the domain owners almost never even respond or reply. They basically setup thousands of these things and make enough pennies on each blog that it adds up eventually into money for nothing.
posted by mathowie at 11:43 PM on April 2, 2008
You don't need a CC license, or any other copyright notice on your blog in order to send takedown notices. I'd be surprised if spammers actually paid attention to them.
No, of course you don't. I wasn't relating the two.
But if you're the kind of person who is going to be particular about this sort of thing, it is best to come to terms with the fact that it is very widespread. A standard "yes attribution, no commercial" license makes your wishes known to the general public. In light of his discovery, languagehat now has an actual policy on how and by whom his words can be used, and having one, he should state it.
On the separate issue of takedowns, when I have filed them, they have always worked, even if we've had to climb the ISP tree to get there.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:22 AM on April 3, 2008
No, of course you don't. I wasn't relating the two.
But if you're the kind of person who is going to be particular about this sort of thing, it is best to come to terms with the fact that it is very widespread. A standard "yes attribution, no commercial" license makes your wishes known to the general public. In light of his discovery, languagehat now has an actual policy on how and by whom his words can be used, and having one, he should state it.
On the separate issue of takedowns, when I have filed them, they have always worked, even if we've had to climb the ISP tree to get there.
posted by DarlingBri at 1:22 AM on April 3, 2008
I think it's worth noting that DMCA takedown notices often are invalid if directed to the abuse contact for the domain if that is not the same as the designated copyright agent, and if you send it to the wrong place, they can (and often will) disregard and suffer no consequences.
posted by oaf at 1:38 PM on April 3, 2008
posted by oaf at 1:38 PM on April 3, 2008
Response by poster: Well, no response from Mr. Auker (can't say I'm surprised), so I guess I move on to Plan B.
So, oaf, did you mean "if not directed to the abuse contact"? In any case, it's a moot point, because when I plugged the domain into your link it said "We have no information for this domain in the database. Lacking any better address, we suggest sending mail to postmaster at this domain and all super-domains of this domain." So should I send the notice to postmaster@business-of-language.com? And what happens if/when nothing happens?
posted by languagehat at 6:09 AM on April 4, 2008
So, oaf, did you mean "if not directed to the abuse contact"? In any case, it's a moot point, because when I plugged the domain into your link it said "We have no information for this domain in the database. Lacking any better address, we suggest sending mail to postmaster at this domain and all super-domains of this domain." So should I send the notice to postmaster@business-of-language.com? And what happens if/when nothing happens?
posted by languagehat at 6:09 AM on April 4, 2008
This thread is closed to new comments.
Registrant:
TAD AUKER
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
Registered through: Web Marketing Concepts LLC
Domain Name: BUSINESS-OF-LANGUAGE.COM
Created on: 22-Sep-06
Expires on: 22-Sep-08
Last Updated on: 25-Aug-07
Administrative Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
Technical Contact:
AUKER, TAD topcoyote@topcoyote.ws
22926 FOREST ROAD
RAPID CITY, South Dakota 57702
United States
(605) 355-9401
posted by iconomy at 7:32 AM on April 2, 2008