Copy Alerts (previous coverage), a service that allowed users to track where their content appears on the Web, has shut its doors, thus ending its service its alerts. Its home page has been replaced with a very brief announcement that directs visitors to this site.

Copy Alerts functioned a bit like a Google Alerts and Copyscape mashup. It allowed users to enter a URL for a page and then receive email alerts when copies of the content appeared, combining the input method of Copyscape with the notification method of Google Alert.

Though Copy Alerts has had much of its ideal functionality replaced by newer services, including FairShare, it still remained a viable service for static pages without RSS support.

Copy Alerts replaced an earlier Copyscape-like search service entitled Bitscan, which used a different methodology than Copyscape and returned different, but still relatively valid results.

Though it doesn’t seem many people were using Copy Alerts, it was still a very interesting service that filled a good niche in this field. It is sad to see it go.

(Note: After writing this article, I am thinking about creating a static page for this site that highlights the list of plagiarism detection applications and services and would be updated as new services opened/closed. Do you have any thoughts on that? Do you think there would be enough interest?)

The new service meshes the functionality of its existing service, the ability to check URLs for duplicate content, and that of Google Alerts, the ability to receive automated emails notifying users of potential infringement.

The service also has a new WordPress Plugin to make the process of creating alerts easier for WordPress users and may be a compelling reason for users to give the copy detection service a try.

How it Works

The idea behind Copy Alerts is extremely simple. You provide the site with the URL that you want to track, an email address to send the alerts and the site will monitor the Web for your content, emailing you when it finds duplicates.

If you want to create a large number of alerts, it may be wise to create an account with the, a process that requires only an email address and a password, so that you can manage all of your alerts in one location, rather than going email by email.

When Copy Alerts finds duplicate content for your pages, it sends you an email, one email with all of your alerts, and provides you with a series of links to a “comparison page” that displays the original and the duplicate side by side.

Though the side-by-side display can be cumbersome without a very wide monitor, you can use tabs at the top to switch between the original and the copy if you wish. You also have basic Whois information for the site at your disposal. However, there is currently no information about who is hosting the allegedly infringing site.

Still, at this point, it is trivial to move forward and take action on the site, thus resolving the issue, if one exists.

Over all, the system itself is extremely straightforward, both requiring almost no additional information and offering few options. For example, many users of Google Alerts will notice that there is no setting to determine how often alerts arrive, meaning that, in some cases, the volume of alerts could be overwhelming.

However, Copy Alerts also has another reason WordPress users might want to take a look at the service.

The Plugin

The new Copy Alerts Web site also comes with a WordPress plugin to help users of the blogging software create alerts and track their content.

For users familiar with the installation process of WordPress plugins, the install will be nothing new. You simply extract the zip, upload the folder to your plugins direct and activated it via your WordPress plugin interface.

Once activated, the plugin adds a function to the post edit page entitled “Copy Alerts” that contains a simple link to create a new alert.

Clicking the link opens up the Copy Alerts site in a new tab, letting you know that the alert has been created and that you need to verify your email address by clicking a link sent to you. Once you’ve done that, the alert is created and placed into your account, if you have one.

The whole process takes only a few seconds though I did experience some delay in getting a couple of my confirmation emails, something that likely is on my end and not Copy Alert’s.

First Impressions

Since I have just returned and have only used the system this morning, I can not comment on the accuracy of the system or effectiveness of it. I will post that information in a new review in a week or two.

But even though this is more of an announcement than a review, I’d like to offer at least a few initial observations, starting with the things that I really like.

The Good

• Distinct Free Feature: The Copy Alerts tool really separates Bitscan and, if it is accurate, distinguishes it from its main rival Copyscape in a major way. This feature could be a big motivator in getting people to switch to Bitscan for content theft detection, especially since Copyscape charges for a similar feature.


• Great Simplicity: One of the questions I get at every conference is “How easy is this track?” so I favor any site that makes it as easy as possible. Copy Alerts definitely meets that goal.


• Advertising Free: At this time at least, both the site and the email are completely advertising free and very minimalist. This helps keep it both very simple and very fast.

The Rough Edges

• Alerts Expire: Alerts created expire within 60 days of creation unless you log into your account. Though the reason for this is obvious, to prevent the site from being burdened with unused alerts, it keeps the service from being a “set and forget” tool.


• The Plugin: The WordPress plugin, though nice in theory, has little purpose. You have to remember to click the link for every post, you still have to log into the account to prevent your alerts from expiring and you still have to verify each alert in your email. There is no functionality in the plugin that is not in the site itself.


• Lack of Options: As great as the simplicity is, I worry that the lack of options may hinder the service. The first results I received were for almost all very small matches, including the blog search engine pictured above. There is no way to set alert thresholds or frequency, meaning that you may get a lot of false positives.

All in all, the first impressions are that of a service with mountains of potential, but a few flaws that may hold it back down the road. I will be testing the service out over the next few weeks and will have a more thorough report then.

Conclusions

Currently, all that I want to provide is a quick announcement of the new service offer some initial feedback. I will be doing more thorough reviews later. However, there is little doubt that this service is, potentially, a huge step in the right direction. Though there are some issues that may hold back its potential usefulness, there is little reason not to at least try it.

One of the co-founders of Bitscan, Mark Nelson, posted a comment on the site while I was away inviting PT users to beta test the service and to look at Bitscan’s new paid accounts service that automatically spider and monitors an entire site.

It will be very interesting to see if and how Copy Alerts and the new Bitscan system changes the way content creators monitor their work.

But, even in the face of that, artists have many reasons to want to exert reasonable control over their work. Even those that are comfortable giving away certain rights still don’t want their work to be plagiarized, scraped in its entirety by spammers or otherwise leeched off of.

Even in the era of free culture, there is still a place for copyright enforcement and it still has a role in protecting authors as they post their works online. However, enforcing copyright, for your average author, is no small challenge.

Simply put, the technology is not there, the law is not accessible and, even after three years of working in this field, the improvements have been slim.

If individual and smaller copyright holders are going to be able to protect their works at all, there are going to have to be improvements. The bad guys are not getting any fewer and the technology they use is developing rapidly as they compete with search engines to get their work ranked well.

In short, we’re caught in the cross-fire of a different war and we lack the means to protect ourselves. That is something that has to change soon.

The Issues We Face

When a new artist or Webmaster seeks to persue an infringement of their work, the learning curve is steep and the stakes are very high. Many refuse to start simply because it is too intimidating and I am hard pressed to fault them.

This learning curve is exasperated by a collection of inadequacies and problems that Webmasters have to endure and work around. Those problems include the following:

1. Copyright Law is Confusing: Even if one discounts the slew of copyright myths, copyright law is confusing and vague. It is so bad that many lawyers call it “unreadable” and few touch if they can avoid it. Laypeople have almost no hope of navigating it successfully, especially when it comes to issues such as fair use.
2. Lack of Detection Tools: It is a simple fact, there are no tools currently available to the average consumer designed, from the ground up, to track content copying. There are ways to use existing tools for that purpose, such as with Google Alerts, but these are hacks designed to turn a generic search engine into a content detection tool. Even services such as Copyscape and Bitscan are search engine hacks in and of themselves, just significantly more user-friendly and elegant in nature. Sadly, despite improvements, this simplicity comes at the expense of accuracy.
3. Networking is Hard: Assuming one can navigate copyright law and locate an infringement they are prepared to act upon, finding out who to write can be difficult. Determining the host of the site is no easy task in many cases and, though new tools have come forward to help with that, the accuracy can leave something to be desired.
4. Hosts are Uncooperative: Even if you can find the host and determine who to contact, there is no guarantee that they will be helpful. Many hosts are uncooperative in these matters and refuse to remove infringing works, even if the law is very clear. Even those who are cooperative can throw up unnecessary roadblocks and create huge delays.
5. The Process Doesn’t Scale: Though the process gets easier every time you do it, Keeping track of your information gets harder as you grow. I’ve used databases, spreadsheets and even Word files to keep track of the cases I’ve handled, However, every solution has been both inefficient and incomplete.

With these problems in mind, it is very easy to see why so many either avoid pursuing infringements of their work or stop soon after they start. It is an intimidating process and one that can grow into a tremendous time-sink very easily.

Fixing this problem is going to require more than just more changes to the current system, it is going to require a full solution that addresses these issues by creating a completely new set of tools, ones built from the ground up.

Fixing What’s Broken

If we assume that the current system is broken, or at least not functioning very well, we then have to look at what we can do to fix it.

Unfortunately, some things can not be repaired, at least not anytime soon. Copyright law is not going to magically become intelligible nor are we going to be able to consistently make locating a host easy. Though we can improve these problems with knowledge and technology, some element of these problems will remain.

Fortunately other elements can be addressed.

1. A Centralized Solution: Currently detection and cessation are two different functions requiring very different tools. Unifying these elements would not only make the process faster, but easier to track. This would make it much less intimidating for new comers and streamline the entire process for veterans.
2. Better Searching: The problem with relying on Google, or any other search engine, is that they routinely ban and remove sites that appear to be spam-like in nature. Sadly, these are the exact sites we are sometimes trying to find. Furthermore, any site that relies on Google for searching will make trade offs between simplicity and accuracy, either missing matches or requiring more human filtering of results.
3. Real Image Searching: Image searching right now is a failure. There is no way for a visual artist, especially a smaller one, to effectively search for copies of their work on the Web. Fingerprinting technology exists, but is only available to those with deep pockets.
4. Better Host Accountability: Hosts often ignore DMCA notices and spam reports because they realize that there is very little chance of them being sued. Though much of this is due to the nature of copyright law in the United States, one would hope that there would be other methods of holding hosts accountable other than lawsuits. Though I made an attempt of that with my Host Report, my status on the Web combined with limited sample size and lack of time hamstrung the effort. Such a project would have to be larger than just this site.
5. Integration: Though it is a cliche, we are in Web 2.0. However, the tools are decidedly from the old Web. RSS feeds, widgets and APIs open up a new world of possibilities and ways to simplify the process. New tools should both be aware of these elements and take advantage of them.

Though this sounds like a mammoth task, and it is, much of the work has already been done. Large copyright holders already have tools capable of many of these things, they are just yet to be made available to the public at large.

Fortunately, there may be help on the horizon.

A New Interest

Though the tools and technology have not changed much in the past few years, what has shifted is that there is now a growing interest in creating them. At least two companies, Attributor and Blogwerx, seek to bring many of the features above to the table.

Attributor, for its part, seems to be farther along, already doing beta testing and having signed up both the AP and Reuters, among others. They’ve also announced plans for a “self serve” version of the service aimed at bloggers.

Hopefully, we will see fruits from that later this year.

Also, there are rumors of other companies looking to set up and provide similar services, including at least one company that may be producing a stand-alone software application that will provide much of that functionality.

However, no matter what company it is that makes the big leap, this is an area that is ripe for a great deal of innovation in the months and years to come.

Conclusions

In the nearly three years that I have been running this site, precious little has changed for small copyright holders. Even as new tools have helped deep-pocketed corporations protect their works, often to the point of waging an unreasonable war, those same tools have passed over the rest of us.

However, the powers that be have started to see the potential for making the technology available to the rest of us. This has the potential to not only help us protect our content, but further the copyright dialog by bringing about a greater understanding about the frequency and ways that content is being reused.

Right now, for the most part, we are all just feeling around in the dark, hoping to get an idea of what is going on outside of our site. Even those who are against copyright enforcement have to agree that more knowledge is never a bad thing.

Hopefully, that time is coming soon.

To do that, they are encouraging users to take advantage of a their free scan offer and submit feedback on the quality of the results they have received.

Anyone who is familiar with Copyscape should have little trouble using the service. You simply visit the site, paste in the URL you want to check and Bitscan does all of the work.

Bitscan also has the ability to check offline content by providing a box to paste in your content from any document on your computer. However, it does not have the ability to receive uploads of word processing files at this time.

Currently every user gets 20 free scans. Though that should be more than adequate, my tests would only require about 10 to 15 scans, if it is not you can write the operators of the site and see if they can help.

I am holding off on a more thorough analysis of the service for a few weeks at the request of the developers of the service. Right now they are still tuning the product and don’t expect the service to return the best results that it can.

With that in mind, if you do decide to test the service, take a moment and send them feedback on the product. Let them know how well it performed and what they can do to improve it. Also, I’m certain any feedback on the look, speed, and easy of use would also be appreciated.

I’ll come back in a few weeks with a more thorough analysis of the service, including the results of my own testing and information about future plans for the service.

In the meantime, pound away on the service and be sure to let them know what you think!