jump to last post 1-17 of 17 discussions (69 posts)

8 Reasons Why HP Should File Our DMCAs.

  1. LongTimeMother profile image98
    LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks ago

    It is in HP's interests to reassess the policy about DMCAs. For years we've been told hubbers are responsible for filing DMCAs about individual copyright infringements. But I've looked at the DMCA documentation and really can't see why.

    So here's my 6 top reasons why I believe HubPages should take responsibility for filing DMCAs to protect the integrity (and potential earning capacity) of our articles.

    1. HP must be losing a massive amount of income when traffic from so many hubs/articles is lost through plagiarism. (HP gets % of earnings from every article.) It doesn't make business sense to bleed money from wounds that could be minimized.

    2. The DMCA process DOES allow HP to file DMCAs if ... 'authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.' (See Section 5 of HP's DMCA notice provided with Copyright notices on relevant articles.)

    3. It would be a simple process to introduce the option for us to 'authorize' HP to file DMCAs on behalf of individual hubbers. Add a button to our copyright infringement notices, or give us the option to give 'blanket' approval associated with each account.

    4. Multiple DMCAs filed in quick succession for multiple stolen pages on one site should presumably result in that site being penalized (hopefully closed down) quickly. Plus HP would be in a position to lodge 'legal action' when appropriate to regain control of our articles. Individual hubbers are unlikely to take that step for one or two articles on a particular site. but if HP sees 300 of our articles, for instance, it should be worth the effort to regain their lost share of potential income (and ours.)

    * Why not hire a junior lawyer to come into your office once a week, or even once a month, to act on our behalf when lodging and following up DMCAs? (I suspect that expense will reap an even greater return than money spent hiring Editors if income from improved articles is 'lost' to thieves.)

    5. Individuals are increasingly less likely to file DMCAs. Why? Because offenders are provided with our personal details. In this day and age (particularly with google maps identifying the homes of authors, and so many authors having facebook accounts etc under their real names that could be targeted by unscrupulous plagiarists/hackers), many individuals would gratefully WELCOME the HP address being used on DMCAs.

    Section 3 of the DMCA form could provide HPs name (or the name of the lawyer you engage), HPs address, and an HP email address. This would remove any perceived threat felt by your authors. I'm confident HP could figure out a way to have a specific email address be identified as belonging to our 'authorized agent' and to address any kind of obstacle you feel currently exists..

    6. The 'happiness' factor for hubbers hould not be underestimated. If you want to keep hubbers happy and actively involved in making money for HP, why not relieve us of the problem (time, hassle and perceived 'threat') of filing DMCAs. There is a huge movement towards promoting and generating 'happiness' for staff, customers etc in modern businesses.

    7. HP seems to be promoting a misconception about who can (and therefore should) be submitting DMCAs on work published via HP. Times have changed, and it seems appropriate that if HP wants to now take a level of control over editing, it should be seriously exploring the option of taking a level of control over filing DMCAs.

    Section 4 in a DMCA states ..  I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law.

    Section 5 in a DMCA states ..  "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."

    * It says 'or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner ...'  Nowhere does it say the person lodging DMCAs has to be the actual 'author'.  So it seems reasonable to expect HP could create a system allowing lodgement by HP.


    8. Plagiarists would quickly learn not to mess with HP by stealing articles on HP or niche sites. And, because it has long been discussed that many plagiarists are actually 'following' particular hubbers and/or are even members of HP, your formal announcement and early actions will hopefully result in a quick decline in the number of hubs currently being featured on other sites.

    .... Am I the only one to see sense in giving 'authorization' for DMCAs to be filed by HP using HP' address etc?  I doubt it.  So please reconsider the current HP policy from a 'problem solving' perspective and see what you can come up with.

    Thank you..

    1. TessSchlesinger profile image95
      TessSchlesingerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well thought out. I agree.

    2. janshares profile image97
      jansharesposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Sound logic, makes sense. I agree.

    3. greenmind profile image97
      greenmindposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      YES I just filed a DMCA and was brushed off by the site host. Not sure what to do next. It's in HP's best interest to go after these jerks.

    4. ChristinS profile image97
      ChristinSposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well said and I agree 100%.  Theft of my content was one of the primary reasons I really stopped developing content here as often.  If I didn't have to worry about chasing down thieves (not all are scrapers) I'd probably publish a lot more content.

    5. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image99
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It is not legal for HP to file DMCA's for writers because the team does not own the content, we do.  Only the content owner can file.  Think of it as you running a small business but paying to use somebody else's platform to do so.  They are not responsible for what happens, they are only providing for fee services that allow you to produce your product.

      1. LongTimeMother profile image98
        LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        TT2, I showed extracts from the DMCA documents in my original post where it clearly states you don't have to be the 'content owner' to file. So if you're seeing different wording somewhere else, please copy and paste it here for me to see.

        I'm not interested in what 'people' say. I just want to hear what the law says. Thanks.

        1. Jean Bakula profile image100
          Jean Bakulaposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          I agree, I can't even track down the sites that steal all my work. By the time I find it, its on a site in another language with three other pieces, and isn't worth the work.

          The DMCA's get ignored. I have filed many and NEVER got results. The site is usually gone by then, so I can't do anything. Or the host says they never had that site.

          The only time I got results is when I found the PERSON who stole my work. Then they usually are reasonable and take it down. I also believe the site has the power to do it, and the legal right, they don't want to be bothered.

          1. TessSchlesinger profile image95
            TessSchlesingerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            I have always found that the DMCA does take down my work. However, it makes no difference to either my earnings or my traffic once it is taken down.

        2. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image99
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          The statement I made was based on what the HP has always told us here.  Email them and ask so that you can clarify this for yourself.

          1. LongTimeMother profile image98
            LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            TT2, you and I have both been here long enough to know what HP says. That's not the issue. I'm making a suggestion for 'improving the site' which is why I started this thread. We know what HP currently tells us but I am hoping they'll seriously consider this suggestion ... and offer us an effective and 'better' option in the future.

      2. TessSchlesinger profile image95
        TessSchlesingerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Actually, Hubpages does not need copyright in order to act on our behalf. It just needs our permission to act on our behalf.

        1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image99
          TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          This is not what the team has stated numerous times.  It may be because they simply do not have the manpower to do the DMCA's, however.

          1. psycheskinner profile image83
            psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            It is perfectly clear already, only the rights holder can send the notice.

            At best HP could automate a system for us to send it, but it would have to be from us and include our real legal name and address to be legally enforceable.

            Which is another reason why I prefer to do this myself.  Some of these IP infringing scumbags are not people I want to give that information to.

    6. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Why not hire a junior lawyer to come into your office once a week, or even once a month, to act on our behalf when lodging and following up DMCAs?"

      I suspect you are grossly underestimating the time required to file a DMCA.  It can take me an hour sometimes to file one, with the majority of the time spent in locating the host to file with.  Then it has to be found on their site - something that isn't always even possible.  Badly spun copies I won't even bother with, so it has to be read and checked against the original. 

      I currently have 10 indications (from HP) of copied hubs (more as some are copied multiple times).  That's 6% of my hubs - if that holds true throughout HP, there are hundreds of thousands of DMCA's to file.  They need a group of full time workers, not a part time, once a month, deal.

      1. psycheskinner profile image83
        psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        I use an automated system called Muso TNT to send notices.  It takes a few seconds for each one. Of course it is a service I pay for but it suggests someone sending notices professionally could do it quickly with the right tools.

        1. wilderness profile image98
          wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Are they sending it to the host or to the site?  And if the host, do you provide that information or do they find it? 

          This sounds interesting - I'm tired of spending so much time looking for hosting services.

          1. psycheskinner profile image83
            psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            They focus on hosts of file-sharing sites, Google for search listings.  For the latter there is also a new site called Blasty.

        2. LongTimeMother profile image98
          LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          The automated system sounds like a solution, psycheskinner. But I'd rather have HPs contact details (including 'legal @ niche site name) instead of mine when an automated system contacts offenders. smile

          1. psycheskinner profile image83
            psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            To do that you would need to give them copyright to your work.  Not something I would do,

            1. LongTimeMother profile image98
              LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

              I refer you back to my Point #7, psycheskinner.  Where have you seen any 'legal' requirement to have to part with your copyright?

    7. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image99
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      I sent an email about this to the team earlier today, and while the answer I was given does not say they cannot file DMCA's for writers, it basically says that they won't.  This is a bit different than what I've heard in the past, but there you have it.

      Sondra,

      HubPages does not file DMCA complaints on behalf of others. Hubbers are responsible for their own content.

      Thanks,
      Matt
      Team HubPages

      1. LongTimeMother profile image98
        LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, we all know they won't. That's why I created this thread in the appropriate 'New Feature Suggestions' to raise it as a 'new feature' on HP.

        I've still not seen any 'legal' issue that prevents HP from taking on this task, even in a limited form at first. So I'm waiting for the team and decision-makers at HP to consider it as a suggestion ... and to consider other people's input on this thread. Perhaps they'll conduct a survey or create their own thread asking for people's thoughts in the future, but this is a starting point for discussion.

        I'm sure they're aware that most hubbers believe there's a legal problem and fear they'll have to part with their copyright (which is not true). And I'm sure in many ways it makes their lives 'easier' to expect us to file our own DMCAs. But I've raised a number of reasons why I believe their policy should be changed and all I'm asking is that they consider them.

        Many of the comments here seem in agreement with my original points .... even some of the comments that were intended to disagree with me.

        Whichever way you look at it, the fact remains that the law allows for HP to act as our representative and provide their contact details to lift the burden from hubbers who would (in my case and others) write and publish more for niche sites via HP ... while we still retain copyright over our own work.

        At the moment I find it very unattractive to publish new articles on a site that has such a big problem with plagiarists. HP regularly surveys members asking how likely we are to recommend the site to our friends. So obviously they must care about how we are feeling, and the issues that prevent us from recommending to others.

        For me, at least, this is a big problem and a major issue when it comes to recommending the site. It actually outweighs the many advantages to publishing via HP. But if you'd rather file your own DMCAs with your own personal contact details on the form, that's up to you. I'm not suggesting it should be compulsory. I'm just suggesting it as a 'new feature' we could opt into.

  2. TeriSilver profile image98
    TeriSilverposted 2 weeks ago

    I agree, and I've always thought so.  Content-stealers are not impressed or intimidated by one of a million writers on the internet.  But a largely-branded site like HubPages (or Google, or most every other major publisher) can get the point across in a nonthreatening yet threatening way.  They can speak softly and carry a big stick; we authors have no real big stick to carry. One of the benefits of writing for HP (or any content site where we split revenue) is sharing in the branding; and it is definitely in HubPages' best interest to protect that -- and us -- from these violators. I have learned that I have very little control on my own over these perpetrators; many of whom are hidden by their own "corporate veil."  The best way to protect the HP brand, which is growing now into a wider-known internet force, is to show that "force in numbers" against those who wish to steal from it.

    1. wilderness profile image98
      wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      You might be surprised - some years ago somebody scraped the whole site.  A bunch of hubbers banded together and chased the thief all over the net.  We would shut him down and he'd pop back up somewhere else.  It took a month of more, but he finally disappeared; gave up against the combined might of a dozen or more hubbers constantly searching for him.  And when a hundred or more DMCA's are filed within 24 hours or so, all against the same site and including past history, hosts really pay attention!

      1. LongTimeMother profile image98
        LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        "And when a hundred or more DMCA's are filed within 24 hours or so, all against the same site and including past history, hosts really pay attention!"

        My point exactly, wilderness. And if the DMCAs all came from 'legal @ niche site name' (particularly if there's multiple niche sites where content has been stolen and featured on an offender's site), that process should be very quick and effective.

        I've filed enough DMCAs to know how long the process takes, and I joined in past combined efforts to shut sites down. But if we can avoid the logistical hassle of all doing it, I'd write more content here.

        Plus I'd be more inclined to encourage other writers to join HP if HP actively deterred plagiarists..

  3. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks ago

    Only the rights holder can send the notice. The only way HP could file is if we gave them our copyright.  Which I, for one, am not interested in doing.

    If they brush you off, file with Google, the ad-server, their webhost and all other parties to the material being seen or profited from online.  I assure you, that gets their attention.

    1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
      DzyMsLizzyposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      It has been said, time and time again, within this thread, that giving up your copyright is not required!!!!  We retain our own copyrights; all we'd be doing is authorizing HP to act on our behalf as a legal entity/agent.
      Go back and re-read the OP's original post, and carefully listed quotations from the DMCA law.

      1. tritrain profile image82
        tritrainposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Relax.

        1. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
          DzyMsLizzyposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          That is difficult to do when I see comments that indicate some have obviously failed to read what is right in front of them.
          As my father used to say, "those who will not read are worse off than those who cannot."

  4. tritrain profile image82
    tritrainposted 2 weeks ago

    Makes sense.

  5. angryelf profile image95
    angryelfposted 2 weeks ago

    You realize that the "people" stealing content are scraping the site right? Trust me... There's absolutely nothing special about the content that they are scraping.... It just matches the keywords that those bots are set to look for, and hubpages has quality standards for its content. That makes it a hot site to scrape. Then those scraped articles are dumped onto a "churn and burn" domain to gain fast traffic... Then when the website IS shut down by the webhost, they simply do it over and over and over again because it's fast & easy money. Most of the accounts they use are not linked to them. They know the sites will be shut down. That's part of it. But it's never going to stop unless these people are able to be tracked. Most of the time, it is impossible because they actively protect their identities in every way possible. It's a losing battle. You will always be filing these. It's just part of putting content on the internet.

    1. Marketing Merit profile image97
      Marketing Meritposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Well said!
      I have said this repeatedly, but the most important thing to do, is to file a complaint with Google, so that the copied content is not indexed. Indexing is what drives traffic to the plagiarised site. If ads are running on the site, then file a complaint with the advertiser. Each country has it's own copyright laws and filing a DMCA has limited effect outside of the USA. Also, sites can remain indexed for several months after articles have been removed, so do this first. As the saying goes, follow the money!

      1. LongTimeMother profile image98
        LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, Marketing Merit. Complaining to google and advertisers should be part of the brief for the 'legal' staff protecting our work.

      2. SoniaSylart profile image93
        SoniaSylartposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Many thanks for this Marketing Merit but when a complaint is made to Google and a request made for them not index a stolen article, will the "thief" be given our name and address.  I understand this is the case when filing a DMCA.

      3. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
        DzyMsLizzyposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        And just HOW do you contact Google, and get them to do that?!  They have gotten so big that they don't even bother to answer queries on their so-called "help" pages or contact email.
        I tried doing that a few months back, for an entirely different issue, and to date have not even had the courtesy of an auto-reply stating some time frame by which they would address my issue!

        1. Marisa Wright profile image99
          Marisa Wrightposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          Notifying Google is easy, it's just a case of using the correct form. However that only gets the stolen article removed from Google search results, it doesn't get it deleted.

        2. Marketing Merit profile image97
          Marketing Meritposted 13 days agoin reply to this

          It's easy...honestly! Go here:

          Google DMCA

          Tick box next to Google search. On following page, tick box that says you have a legal issue not listed above. On the page after that, you select the option that says you have found content that violates your copyright.

          It's fairly straightforward after that. You will have to provide the url of your content and the url of the copied content as well as some of your personal details. The only problem is if the copied content has been removed before Google gets a chance to check it out. Then, you will have to wait for it to naturally disappear in the search results, which may take several months.

          Hope this helps!

          1. Will Apse profile image93
            Will Apseposted 13 days agoin reply to this

            This is what HP could do.

            Get a gang of mTurkers to file the easy to justify requests for removal from Google search. In other words,  focus on instances where the text has been stolen unaltered (rather than used in pieces, spun, or a page has been updated after the theft) and there is no need for time consuming interactions.

            If you are in good standing with the DMCA crew over there, they respond very quickly.

            You could probably clear up a small niche site for a few hundred dollars. See if it helps traffic.

  6. Will Apse profile image93
    Will Apseposted 2 weeks ago

    Given that HP uses mTurk for QAP and a crowd sourcing site for comment moderation, it should take a look at filing DMCA's. Trial it and see how the cost benefit analysis comes out.

    1. LongTimeMother profile image98
      LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Yes, Will. I'm sure it wouldn't take them long to figure out what difference it makes in terms of dollars in their bank account.

  7. Jeremy Gill profile image97
    Jeremy Gillposted 2 weeks ago

    Agreed, this would be nice. If it's true (I see some debate in other replies) that we can authorize HP to file on our behalf, it'd be a great help. I recall one of my stolen articles was on a site with no email or method of communication. I was infinitely close to giving up on getting the pilfered article removed before I managed to find a host site and go through them to file the DMCA. Having help with that would have made things much easier.

  8. Shyron E Shenko profile image81
    Shyron E Shenkoposted 2 weeks ago

    I am with you on this, I have an article that is gone from HP not just copied but totally gone wiped away like it never existed.

  9. Marisa Wright profile image99
    Marisa Wrightposted 2 weeks ago

    I'm grateful to LongTimeMother for pointing out that HubPages COULD file a DMCA on our behalf, which is not what most of us believed.

    However I don't think it's reasonable to expect them to do it for us.  How many staff would they need to file DMCA's for every individual Hub?  It would be unaffordable. 

    I do agree, though, that where a site is scraping wholesale, HubPages should be taking action.

    1. TIMETRAVELER2 profile image99
      TIMETRAVELER2posted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      +1

      I have always looked at my writing here as if it were a small business.  I pay to use a platform, but I produce the work, and it is mine.  I feel it is my responsibility to take care of DMCA issues, even though it would be nice to have somebody else do it for me.

      Personally, I think it's great that the team gives us the help and guidance we need to be able to file these reports.

    2. theraggededge profile image99
      theraggededgeposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      My view exactly. They are scraping the site code. That belongs to HP.  I wouldn't expect them to be filing individual DMCAs for one second, but when it's the whole site, then HP needs to get it sorted.

    3. LongTimeMother profile image98
      LongTimeMotherposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Hi Marisa. It doesn't seem that long ago when hubbers were saying the same kind of thing about HP
      'improving the quality' of individual hubs. The content was our responsibility because we're the authors. But today HP has a bunch of editors with the power to make changes.

      We went from 'HP never touch content' to an 'opt in' editing option to 'compulsory' editing with a whole team of editors.

      If it makes economic sense, it will happen. HP's success hinges on authors creating lots of good content and being happy to publish on their site ... and those articles attracting traffic from search engines, without being penalised because of unauthorised copies. So this kind of change might make a significant difference in dollar terms for HP, which would make it 'affordable'.  We'll just have to wait and see.

  10. tritrain profile image82
    tritrainposted 2 weeks ago

    I think it could be good for HubPages to keep a copy of DMCA requests, but they should be filed by us, since we own the rights to our content.

    I don't know if that's possible without some form of copying and pasting programmatically.

  11. SoniaSylart profile image93
    SoniaSylartposted 2 weeks ago

    Having today found a stolen hub which I published on HP earlier this month, and worked long and hard on as we all do, like LongTimeMother, I must hesitate to recommend HP to others.  I've recently set myself some targets to increase my rate of publishing but at the minute I feel so discouraged. 

    I believe it would be beneficial all round if HP were to take on the task of trying to remove sites which have multiple stolen hubs and would be happy to give them permission to act on my behalf for all my hubs. Anonymity and the time elements are most important to me.

  12. tritrain profile image82
    tritrainposted 2 weeks ago

    It doesn't matter where your content is published on the internet, it's always possible that someone would steal it.  It's not HP's fault.  You do have the right, and probably the obligation, to report it to the DCMA.

    1. ChristinS profile image97
      ChristinSposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        When they allow whole sites to scrape the content here and do nothing, yes, it is their fault.  I can see the odd hub being stolen as solely the responsibility of the author, but let's be honest.  HP makes a lot of money off of publishing the work of its writers.  When sites steal tons of content from here - they should be helping to address that problem rather than putting it off solely on us.

      1. wilderness profile image98
        wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        Your suggestion as what to do about a Russian site scraping HP?  How should HP (or hubbers) go about "addressing the problem"?

        Reason I ask is that I have a dozen or so hubs scraped by a Chinese site, and nobody in China cares any more than Russia does.  I haven't found any way to get them taken down.

        1. SoniaSylart profile image93
          SoniaSylartposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          it's concerning if the pages or sites cannot be taken down but if HP can do the legwork to have google not index them that would be appreciated.

          1. wilderness profile image98
            wildernessposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

            As has been pointed out, HP can do that.  So can hubbers, and at a lot less cost than HP.  How much are you willing to pay HP to do your legwork for you?

      2. tritrain profile image82
        tritrainposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

        They cannot prevent their site from being scraped.  If the scraper is from a certain IP and HubPages blocks it, they can always use a different IP .  That's the nature of internet.  For content to be visible, it must be able to be downloaded.

        There is nothing they can do about it. 

        However, the search engines will likely recognize it as duplicate content and give it a very low rank.  If a DMCA is submitted then Google and the like will de-index it. 

        We do not want to give up our rights to our work, so because of that we, the creators, must submit the DMCA.

        1. ChristinS profile image97
          ChristinSposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

          Sigh.  You do not have to give up rights to your work for HP to take action.

  13. Marisa Wright profile image99
    Marisa Wrightposted 2 weeks ago

    Sonia, that is why you file your DMCA with the host, not the offending website owner

    1. psycheskinner profile image83
      psycheskinnerposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Indeed.  I am always strategic about whether I file with the site, the host, or google.  Google being the safest option.

    2. DzyMsLizzy profile image97
      DzyMsLizzyposted 2 weeks agoin reply to this

      Sometimes, using the "WhoIs" domain search will give you the host, the contact information, and sometimes not.
      I don't know why they are not (apparently) legally mandated to publish actual information, instead of getting away with listing everything from the site owner's name, to the address and other contact information as "private" or some other such non-identifying statement.

      Today, I just looked up a site I had no way of knowing if there even was such a site:  "biscaynebay(dot)com," and Whois pulled up this:

      Domain:biscaynebay.com
      Registrar:eNom, Inc.
      Registration Date:1998-04-17
      Expiration Date:2018-04-16
      Updated Date:2017-05-02
      Status:clientTransferProhibited
      Name Servers:ns1.parkingcrew.net
      ns2.parkingcrew.net
      REGISTRANT CONTACT
      Name:LOREN STOCKER
      Organization:I2.NET C/O SOFTLINE STUDIOS
      Street:PO BOX 2004
      City:DEL MAR
      State:CA
      Postal Code:92014
      Country:US
      Phone:+1.8587925000
      Email:email@800.NET

      That is what the data SHOULD look like, IMO.

      However, oftentimes you find something more like this one--another site I just made up to see if I could find an example:

      Domain:scrapers.com
      Registrar:GoDaddy.com, LLC
      Registration Date:2000-02-04
      Expiration Date:2018-02-04
      Updated Date:2016-12-15
      Status:clientDeleteProhibited
      clientRenewProhibited
      clientTransferProhibited
      clientUpdateProhibited
      Name Servers:ns53.domaincontrol.com
      ns54.domaincontrol.com
      REGISTRANT CONTACT
      Name:Abdul-Hafiz Zein
      Organization:Scrapers s.a.r.l.

      That's all there is; no way to actually find them--just a notation at the bottom reading,  "Please note: the registrant of the domain name is specified
      in the "registrant" section.  In most cases, GoDaddy.com, LLC
      is not the registrant of domain names listed in this database."


      So, yes, I'm adding my vote to the OP!

  14. LongTimeMother profile image98
    LongTimeMotherposted 12 days ago

    Okay, let me give an example that's going to shock a lot of you ....

    Back in 2014 when I discovered one of my hubs was featured on youtube (yes, our work gets stolen in many different ways) I lodged a DMCA with youtube. They removed the offending clip. But shortly after it was reinstated by youtube unless I was prepared to lodge legal action.

    Why? Because the offender insisted it was their original work. The address of the offender was provided to me (just as mine had presumably been provided to them) but youtube presumably contacted them by email because their Indian street address simply didn't exist. I couldn't find it on googlemaps and I checked with a lovely Indian hubber who also confirmed 'no such place'.

    I suspect there's many other stolen hubs/articles suffering the same fate ... even though you're not aware of it. And I would be very grateful if HP would 'take legal action' even if it just means lodging something with the relevant (US) court to stop offenders who are clearly making money from our work. Is it really appropriate to expect an individual hubber (particularly those outside the US) to try and tackle this alone?

    Now, years later, the youtube video is still online. Here's the REALLY annoying part of the story ...

    - My article is on Page 1 google searches (and other search engines).
    - For years it was in top spot but has dropped a little, sits about #2 now.
    - But the STOLEN copy is also on Page 1 of google searches.

    If you're the sort of searcher who chooses to watch a video on the topic and ignore the text options, you'll get to see my hub being read out word for word. The stolen copy is the FIRST in the videos.

    Don't believe me? Google search 'comfrey broken bones' (without the inverted commas, just the text) and tell me what you find. (Click on my article on remedygrove niche site, and read along with the video.)

    ... Then ask yourself how many of your articles are likely to be featured on youtube without you even knowing ... And if you'd like HP to take action if other HP articles have been stolen in the same way by the same offenders. (Seems highly likely there's others. Doubt they just went searching for such a specific topic, don't you think?)  Or do you think individual hubbers should be responsible for taking legal action to have each stolen hub/article removed?

    1. ChristinS profile image97
      ChristinSposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      Wow! I'm really shocked that YouTube allowed that and gave you the brushoff.  I wonder how many of our hubs have been converted to videos with thousands of views making others money. That's very frustrating! So sorry that happened to you.  Yes, HP should be helping to address this if it's widespread. That's unacceptable.  wow.

      1. LongTimeMother profile image98
        LongTimeMotherposted 11 days agoin reply to this

        I took a quick look and instantly identified another hub stolen by the same people.. https://hubpages.com/health/getridofgoutfast 

        It was easy. I just randomly picked one of their videos that's been up for 3 years (like mine). This one even has an ad at the front. (Mine doesn't, but the topic of mine won't be as popular as Gout so is probably not worthy of ads.)

        Interesting to note the hub (still on HP, not on niche site) appears on Page 1 of google ... But the stolen video appears ABOVE the original work by the hubber.

        When comparing the hub with the video, there's a slight rearrangement of text but slabs are still exactly the same. I suspect the video was made reading word-for-word before the hubber rearranged his article because the date on the hub shows it has been updated more recently.

        Does HP need me to look for more before deciding to take action? I believe I could easily identify a bunch more hubs on youtube ... but what's the point? It will just be an exercise in frustration for other hubbers, as it was for me, unless HP take on the task.

        Here's the video that matches the hub. https://www.youtube {dot} com/watch?v=jNPrxZjGmAA

  15. psycheskinner profile image83
    psycheskinnerposted 11 days ago

    Filing with Google would have a good chance of stopping the offending video from appear in search.

  16. LongTimeMother profile image98
    LongTimeMotherposted 11 days ago

    On the subject of stolen hubs on youtube, here's one belonging to Lela Davidson. (Took me just 10 minutes to find it, read through the article along with the video voice, and identify specific slabs.)

    Unfortunately for Lela, she's obviously gone to a lot of trouble to rewrite her article after it was stolen. So it doesn't match word for word anymore. But presumably HP has a copy of the earlier version, even if Lela doesn't have one. (Even as it stands now, it should be easy to build a case for plagiarism, particularly given the title, capsule headings, order, and slabs of text etc.)

    For instance,
    "The most important thing you can do if you feel you may be pregnant is take a pregnancy test. These are inexpensive and widely available. You can even find them sometimes at the dollar stores! There are also community resources available such as Planned Parenthood where you can get a test for free if you cannot afford to pay. If you are too shy to buy one yourself, ask a friend to pick one up for you. For your health and your baby's health, it's best to know as soon as you can if you are indeed pregnant."

    Yep, there's ads on this one as well. Our hubs have obviously helped build their presence on youtube and they're making money out of them.

    Perhaps HP should be making poor quality videos out of our work and making us more money that way. (Have to be quick though if you want to beat newly published articles from being stolen and featured there first.)

    Personally I'd rather HP just help us have them removed. I know there's more of us ... in fact possibly many of us ... whose stolen hubs are being used by just this one youtube account. Is it not worth HP shutting them down?

    https://wehavekids.com/having-baby/Am-I-Pregnant
    https://www.youtube (dot) com/watch?v=RcHTZGP8YUA

    1. LongTimeMother profile image98
      LongTimeMotherposted 11 days agoin reply to this

      Sad news for NateB11. I found one of your hubs in video form. (But you, too, can now have the fun of hearing 'you' tell your story in a robotic female voice.)  It has had 162,000 hits on youtube. I'm hoping you're going to tell me the original version has had at least twice that many

      https://hubpages.com/health/How-To-Redu … m-The-Face
      https://www.youtube (dot) com/watch?v=VJMGT4sDVbo

      And here's another hub ... with ads. It has had over 140,000 hits on youtube. How is it performing on hubpages?

      https://hubpages.com/health/Lose-Weight-With-Moringa#
      https://www.youtube (dot) com/watch?v=VdXwt4PCmpY

      (Don't know why these articles are not on niche sites. Can't imagine they're doing much in the way of making money for the hubbers who wrote them, but I might be wrong.)

      The gout article i mentioned earlier is also still on hubpages, yet the stolen video version has had 300,000 hits ... with ads.

      So ... are we getting some kind of idea of how financially beneficial it could be for HP to actively intervene and help protect our work? HP is a common denominator here when it comes to being ripped off. Each individual hubber is losing  a 'little'. HP on the other hand, has the cumulative loss of their share of views.

      I raised this topic with HP years ago when I first spotted the problem but was told i had to look after my stolen content myself. There was nothing I could do. Looking at youtube now, though, it seems what began as a small case of acne might have grown into a festering sore.  Needs some professional help to lance it.

      1. ChristinS profile image97
        ChristinSposted 10 days agoin reply to this



        Indeed, they need to do something that's just ridiculous, particularly videos outranking original works.  Ugh.

        1. psycheskinner profile image83
          psycheskinnerposted 10 days agoin reply to this

          Not to harp on, but in the meantime reporting them  is easy and typically effective.  When this fails, reporting to Google is a back up. If that doesn't work I hit their advertisers or ad serving network.  Tedious, but as the creator--I assume I am the most motivated person involved to fix it.
          https://www.youtube.com/reportingtool/legal
          https://support.google.com/legal/troubleshooter/1114905 <--select "web search"

          If Hubpages could do this for us (which is probably unfeasible) the outcome would be no different.  If the reported site files a counterclaim the material will be put back up.  But if you hit it from enough angles you can get most of them-.

          1. ChristinS profile image97
            ChristinSposted 9 days agoin reply to this

            I still believe that the HubPages site name carries more weight and for that reason YouTube may be more inclined to listen.  Different situation, but remember back when Pinterest blocked the HP domain due to an influx of what they felt was spam and HP handled that - they have clout that us "little people" don't have on our own.

            In the case of hundreds of thousands of views on YouTube of stolen material, I would think they would want to help us out.  They are losing money on that deal too.  I can't think of any reason why people would continue to write if content is just allowed to be stolen en masse and put on Youtube where it outranks the original content. 

            YouTube may not listen to you or I, but I bet they'd listen to HP.  Just a thought.

  17. TeriSilver profile image98
    TeriSilverposted 10 days ago

    Robin or Paul, can you please respond to all of this?  Thank you.

 
working