1: Artist Finds His Own Music Video Removed From YouTube, Lashes Out On Twitter

First off today, in the story that seems to have caught Twtitter by storm, musician Calvin Harris has gone on an obscenity-strewn rant after his official video for “Ready for the Weekend – Original Mix” was removed from his own YouTube account. To recap, that’s his own video being removed from his own YouTube account.

However, the plot thickens as the tipster that first notified the author of this article is claiming that this is part of a larger feud between the record labels who, according to this source, are filing takedown notices against each other’s content on YouTube in an effort to sabotage their efforts.

Personally, that seems highly unlikely to me as the DMCA provides very harsh penalties for filing knowingly false notices and record labels are in more than an adequate position to file suit over this kind of matter. This is furthered by the fact that this takedown appears to have been filed by BPI, Harris’ own label.

Still, that didn’t stop Harris from going on one very angry rant. Bear in mind there is some pretty harsh language in the article linked above.

2: Apple takes legal heel off throat of wiki operator

Next up, Apple appears to have backed off in its dispute with the owner of BluWiki. The site, which is a wiki hosting service, was sent several letters of complaint by Apple after a user of the service, who had created a wiki entitled ItunesDB, was hosting a dialog about how to break the encryption on the iPod and related products in order to make other applications work with them.

Apple complained that this was a violation of their rights under the DMCA, which also prohibits the circumvention of digital rights management schemes, and the two had been going back and forth for approximately seven months. However, after the EFF filed suit against Apple, asking for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement, Apple has decided to back off, rescind its cease and desist and allow the works to be reposted. EFF for their part, is withdrawing the suit.

This matter does seem to be resolved but it did take seven months and a lawsuit, not exactly an easy or swift ending.

3: UK men pirate more than women; everyone confused over rights

Finally today, a new survey from the UK shows that men are more likely to pirate movies and music than women, 50 percent of men versus 38 percent of women and, perhaps most worrisome, that 60 percent didn’t think musicians should be paid for their music online.

The survey also showed that piracy is on the rise in the UK, which directly contradicts and earlier study that found it was going down, even among teens, and there was also a great deal of confusion about copyright in general, with a quarter saying they didn’t have any rights to content they posted online and a “majority” saying that anything on the Web was free to use.

It’s a very worrisome report that highlights what is likely a need for better education on these topics.

Suggestions

That’s it for the three count today, we’ll be back tomorrow with three more copyright links. If you have a link that you want to suggest a link for the column or have any proposals to make it better. Feel free to leave a comment or send me an email. I hope to hear from you.

Want the Full Story?

Tune in every Saturday morning for the live recording of the Copyright 2.0 Show or wait and get the edited version Monday morning right here on Plagiarism Today.

However, as a recent article on The Slate has shown, Knol has not exactly emerged into the Wikipedia-killer it was hyped up to be. The article sites rampant plagiarism, poorly-written articles and poorly-sourced facts as some of Knol’s signs of inferiority.

So, even if it is not time yet to truly call Knol a failure, we’re clearly to a point where we can start talking about what has gone wrong and what Google can do to fix it.

Unfortunately, the problems with Knol seem to be fundamental ones with the service itself and are not things that Google can fix easily. In short, if Google Knol is to become competitive with Wikipedia, or even blogs in general, it can not be the Knol we all know and despise.

Knowledge Gone Astray

The Slate article points to two critical differences between Wikipedia and Knol that seems to hinder Knol’s success.

1. Lack of Community Support: In order to edit an existing Knol, you have to get approval from the original author, this reduces community involvement and puts anonymous editors at the mercy of the “experts” that wrote the article.
2. Repetition: Since articles cannot be easily edited, people tend to upload their own articles rather than try to build off ones that exist, this leads to topics with dozens of competing articles.
3. Advertising Reward: Google allowed submitters to earn money from their content by means of advertising. This attracted people with bad intentions to the site.

Strangely, I have to agree with all of these problems. When I first wrote about the site, I noted that it was a service practically asking to be spammed and, according to my two-week follow-up, I was right.

However, none of these problems with the site really cut to the core. Google has made some tactical mistakes with Knol but it has made a much larger one in its concept that will sink it no matter what other changes they make.

The Problem is QUALITY

A three-word summary of Knol would likely read “Quantity over Quality”.

Google, as a search engine company, approached the problem of creating an encyclopedia much like you would expect. They set up the rules of Knol in such a way that it would encourage as much content as possible to be uploaded to the service.

Then, according to the theory, a combination of human ratings and search algorithms would pluck the best results, rewarding those who knew wrote the most authoritative articles.

Unfortunately, the theory is flawed beyond all recognition. Consider these problems:

• Search is Stupid: As Google’s traditional Internet search has shown, algorithms are mediocre, at best, at locating the authoritative sites. Google Knol, despite the controlled environment, does not seem to improve upon this.
• Humans Aren’t Much Better: Humans that use Knol are trying to find out information they don’t know. They are in almost no position to judge how authoritative an article is. Most humans will not check sources or verify what they read, meaning an authoritative-sounding pile of lies has a better chance of success than a more meek, factual article.
• Spammers Can Game the System: Not only can spammers easily upload articles to Google Knol, but they can game the system to vote for themselves and feign broad user support. They do this already with blogs using inbound links but the controlled environment of Knol actually makes it easier.
• Terms are More Important Than Being Number One: As with the Internet at large, you can gain more reward being number 10 for a popular keyword than being number one on a lesser-known one. Though this increases competition on popular keywords, it rewards mediocre content on popular phrases more than robust knowledge on all topics.
• The 95% Problem: The biggest problem, however, is that even if the theory worked perfectly, most of the content on Knol would be complete and utter garbage. Though the good stuff might be at the top, it doesn’t take much for users to sink into the cesspool that is below. This colors the experience, hurts the reputation of the good articles and makes people distrust Knol as a source of information.

The end result of this is not that Google has created its own Wikipedia, instead, Google has created its own miniature Internet where they set the rules.

The problem is that this new Web offers no compelling reasons for creators or visitors to access it. Creators can make more money and get more traffic running a traditional blog while visitors have the same access to quality information outside of Google’s walled garden.

The end result is that Knol has created a service that benefits no one but the spammers that abuse it. As such, Knol has virtually seals its own fate unless it can turn that around.

Fixing Knol

I would argue that, with its current mission statement, Knol can’t be fixed. The problems that plague Knol are ones that exist on the Web at large, but Knol’s close proximity to Google’s heart amplifies all of these issues and makes it easier for those that wish to abuse the service.

In order to fix Knol, Google needs to step away from this idea that Knol is meant to be the anti-Wikipedia. Though Wikipedia has its problems and certainly isn’t a reliable source, it is both more useful and more reliable than Knol.

For all that Wikipedia has done wrong, it has done a fair amount right including build a huge community, produce an incredibly large number of entries, work to enforce a quality standard and keep itself moving forward. Sure, it makes mistakes, has vandals and can be a cesspool in places, it isn’t spinning its wheels with endless repetition of the same information.

Google, to beat Wikipedia cannot throw out what it does well in a bid to oppose it. Beating something does not mean being its foil. It means doing what it does better.

Knol’s premise is simply not as good as Wikipedia’s. It is time for Google to go back to the drawing board and figure out not what it can do different, but what it needs to do the same and then what it can improve.

Conclusions

For those of us who don’t use Knol, the failure of the service is actually good news. After all, it was our content that was making up so many of the plagiarized pages on the service. Knol’s failure to gain any traction in the past two months is a positive sign indicating that, while it is certainly an ideal for spammers, it is unlikely that they will get much out of it.

This means that Google’s failure could, in the long run, work to our benefit. However, until Knol has been proved to be completely useless for the spammers, it is likely that they will continue to pound away on it.

After all, if there is even a drop of benefit to be gained, the spammers will continue to try. They don’t invest anything in their efforts, other than setting up their computers and letting them go.

For those who are interested in this topic, I will be writing and posting a follow up on Knol sometime in the coming week. I am still following the service. If you wish, you can subscribe to the RSS feed and be notified when the article goes live, as well as get updates on other copyright and plagiarism matter.

My thanks goes out to the Guardian for thinking of me and I want to again welcome all of the new readers.

Over the past few days, Google has been taking a huge pounding over its Google Knol service. One of the harshest criticisms came from Aaron Wall, who said that it was “Google’s Latest Attack on Copyright” and cited threats to search engine rankings by both well-intended Knol submitters and spammers alike.

Others have accused Google of favoring Knol in its search results, either directly or indirectly, noting that many of the early articles are already ranking very high in the search engines,

Though some havecome up to defend Knol, at least to an extent, the general consensus seems to be one of unease with Google Knol and what its implications for bloggers are.

Unfortunately, for the most part, I have to agree with this feeling and share the concern of my fellow bloggers. Google’s answer to Wikipedia does not inspire the same sense of community spirit that its predecessor does and seems to raise more questions than it does answers, especially at this time.

Knowledge Served with a Side of Spam

If Google Knol is Google’s answer to Wikipedia, it stands to reason that Knol will face the same challenges as its forefather, at least in the long run.

At the top of that list of challenges will, most likely, be spam. Unfortunately, Google has shown us that, on its hosted services at least, it is almost incapable of dealing with spam.

For example, though several offenses against spam on Blogspot have improved things there, Blogspot still remains one of the most popular services for hosting spam content and one still has little trouble finding spam blogs on the service. Likewise, Google Groups has become a popular spam target and it seems predictable that Knol will as well.

For Google, the problem is two-fold. Even if they are not artificially favoring Knol, there will be a perception that they are and the site will still, without assistance, likely rank well. Thus, it will be a major target for spammers for the exact same reasons Blogspot and other Google services have traditionally been targeted.

The second is that Google’s spam defenses have historically been extremely weak. Their CAPTCHA system has been broken, reporting spam to them works both slowly and irregularly and filing a copyright notice is a painful process that produces a slow response.

I can only imagine that many spammers already have their aim set on Google Knol or at least watching it to see when they should consider exploiting it.

Should the spammers come, Google will likely be caught off guard and that could both sink Knol as a project and trash the rankings of legitimate Webmasters who have had their content misused.

Google’s Precautions

However, Google almost certainly saw this problem coming and took several steps to counter it. After looking at the site, I see several features that were designed to make it more spam resistant than its wiki brother.

Login Required: With Wikipedia, anyone can edit almost every entry, regardless of whether or not they are logged in. Google Knol requires uses to log in with the Google Account before posting.

Nofollow Links: Google Knol automatically “nofollows” all links in its entries, meaning that they will not receive any PageRank from the Knol, thus limiting the site’s usefulness as a link farm.

Flag Inappropriate Content: Though Google’s “flag” feature on Blogspot is notoriously useless, the one on Knol seems to carry more weight and lets users not only specify the nature of the complaint, but leave comments and specific information.

Unfortunately, requiring a login is unlikely to have any significant effect on preventing spam. Spammers already have Google accounts and seem to be able to generate them almost at will. Also, this removes a safeguard found in WIkipedia where, if you found your content was infringed, you could reach in and remove it yourself without even signing up in many cases.

That is not possible with Knol. Instead, we have to rely on quick action from Google, something that is unlikely given Google’s history.

While the nofollow links will likely keep some spammers at bay, it’s also a source of ire for many Webmasters. Even if a Knol author attempts to give credit for work they copied (with permission) the link will be meaningless to the search engines, virtually ensuring that the duplicate will outrank the original given Knol’s likely standings.

The final element remains untested but it is worth noting that it provides a link to yet another DMCA policy, Google’s fourth, that has the same requirements of a handwritten signature sent via fax or email.

Fortunately, my workaround should still be applicable to Knol.

All in all, these are good precautions but they raise more issues than they solve likely will have almost no impact on any spam wave that does strike.

Other Knol Issues

Spam is not the only issue for Knol to worry about and certainly not the only reason bloggers should keep an eye on the service. There are other oddities and concerns that may strain Google Knol’s relationship with the rest of the Web.

1. Duplicate Content: As Wall pointed out in his post, if content appears in both Knol and another site, even a major one, Google’s duplicate content filter seems to favor Knol over the original. This opens the door to ranking sabotage and even one accidentally removing themselves from the search index by sharing content with Knol.
2. Default Licensing: Though it is exciting to see Google get behind Creative Commons, the default license for all content posted into Knol is CC-BY, meaning that it can be used for any purpose with attribution. This is even less restrictive than the license on Wikipedia and few will be likely to change it, even if they don’t intend to give away so many rights. This is illustrated by the fact that most existing Knols use that license though contributors can select “All Rights Reserved” when creating the post. The problem is that, if a spammer scrapes content and posts it to Knol. other sites may feel, incorrectly, that they have the right to use it and that could help spread duplicate content past Knol.
3. The Profit Motive: Google Knol allows anyone who creates a Knol to place ads next to it. This will not only likely attract even more spammers, the same way the Adsense policy on Blogspot has done so there, but also attract more human plagiarists. With click-through rates and payouts as they are, the only people that can expect to earn significant money from this are those that focus on quantity over quality. This is likely to reward those who bend and break the rules more than those who follow them.

The end result is that it is not a matter of if Knol will be spammed, but when it will happen and what form it will it take. Will it be SEO spammers using it to kick competitors out of the rankings? Will human plagiarists use the Adsense system to submit lifted content for the promise of high search results and ad revenue? Will it be something else altogether.

Google Knol is simply too tempting of a spam target to ignore and, if it achieves the rankings many predict it will, it will definitely have a bulls-eye on its back.

We can only hope that Google is ready for it.

What Webmasters Can Do

Since participating in Knol could easily cannibalize your own rankings, especially since you can’t effectively link to your own content, deciding what to do is tricky.

The best thing, right now is to keep on top of how your content is used. Use Google Alerts with static content and Digital Fingerprints to track any content in an RSS feed.

The good news is that, even if Knol achieves search engine dominance, there will likely be a period of time between when a new article hits the search engines and when it ranks well. If one acts quickly after an infringement, there is a good chance that any damage can be mitigated.

Fortunately, right now, the problem is just one sitting on the horizon. If we address the issue now, we can prepare, speak up and stop any negative effects before they happen.

Conclusions

Though many of the criticisms hurled at Knol also apply to Wikipedia (nofollow links, default licensing, etc.) Wikipedia has the benefit of being a true community effort. This provides safeguards against spammers and lets copyright holders protect themselves. With Google, there are very limited community safeguards and we have to rely on them to remove any infringing works.

Also, Google does not seem to trust Wikipedia’s authority to the exclusion of other sites, something it has already done in a couple of cases with Knol, and that, in turn, raises other questions.

However, it seems the biggest problem that many have with Knol is that Google, despite claims to the contrary, is becoming a publisher. However, it is important to note that Google has operated a blogging service, a Web site publishing tool, a forum service and and other hosted offering for many years, all of which are currently indexed in their search engine.

Though it is worrisome to see a search engine like Google become so involved in the creation of content, even going so far as to paying authors directly, other search engines, including Yahoo! and MSN, have much greater conflicts of interest.

The problem is not that Google is paying authors to write for their site and then ranking the content well, other search engines do that all of the time, the problem is that Google is exposing the jugular vein of Webmasters when it comes to SEO and leaving the door open for spammers, competitors and plagiarists to strike it.

Though only time will tell what becomes of Google Knol and what its impact is, there is a lot of good reason for Webmasters and authors to be very worried.

Update 07/30

The YouTube video below demonstrates clearly that the automated generation of Knol articles is already possible. The spam wave is already set to begin:

The video also clearly illustrates the mindset of a spammer in a way that I can not illustrate with thousands of words of text, so it is worth the watch alone simply to understand how and why spammers operate.

The problem is that the community admin, the person usually in the best position to deal with any content theft, has no rights or control over the work on the site. Even the most liberal of copyright licenses do not give the admin copyright control over the work and, thus, they can not determine where else the work is displayed.

The decision about how and if to battle content theft on such sites does not rest in the hands of any one person, but rather, in the hands of the users, a group that can easily number into the hundreds or the thousands.

However, a community site is no different from an individual blog or company home page, the content is still crucial to the future of the site as it attracts new members, builds search engine traffic and is the basis for contextual advertising. Furthermore, many members will not participate in a site if they know that posting there almost certainly means their hard work will be ripped off.

Protecting it is still important, but doing so is a much greater challenge.

Who’s Copyright is it Anyway?

Since transferring a copyright requires a written contract signed by the two parties copyright holder (Thank you Aaron for catching the error), the simple act of posting a work to a forum or a wiki does not cause the copyright to transfer with it. Thus, the user retains control over the copyright, though he or she does allow the site to display the work, and can decide where and if the work can be displayed elsewhere.

This means that only the user can say no to an infringement and only the user, or an agent authorized to act on their behalf, can file a DMCA notice over such an infringement.

This means that, if a forum or wiki is being scraped or otherwise plagiarized, it is up to the individual users to file complaints with the host to get the work removed. However, as any forum administrator will know, getting users to act in a coordinated manner, especially when many may have differing views about the infringement, can be nearly impossible.

Fortunately, it is not necessary, nor even desirable, to bring all members on board in such an event. Instead, there are other steps that can be taken to ensure that the forum or wiki is, overall, very well protected.

Methods for Success

Dealing with this form of content theft requires a large dose of prevention and advance planning. Getting yourself ready and having your users prepared can make all of the difference when and if the need to act should arise.

1. Prepare Your Users: Let your users know that the danger is out there, offer them information how to search for plagiarism of their work and give them the tools to handle any incidents that do arise. Also, encourage them to go to you or another moderator if they discover any such theft, especially if it involves other work on the site as well.
2. Participate in Your Site: Many administrators don’t contribute to their own forums, however, if you participate and any work of yours is scraped or copied, you then have a direct copyright interest and can act yourself to stop it.
3. Rally Key Members: Nearly every forum has moderators and/or key members that are responsible for a large percentage of the posting. If you get their cooperation in advance and touch base with them about where else they post their works, you can not only be more certain of infringement but, if needed, even get them to let you act as a designated agent, enabling you to file notices on their behalf.
4. Disable or Truncate RSS Feeds: Forums, unlike blogs, generally have little use for RSS feeds. Most members use internal tools to monitor what is new on the site. If your forum software automatically generates RSS feeds, it is probably wise to disable them or convert them to headline-only.
5. Spot Check Content: As with any site, it pays to occasionally spot check the content posted there, especially the more popular works, to see if it has been plagiarized. Even if you can not act on it right then, you can notify the original user and advise them on what they can do.

The bottom line is that, as a community site admin, you have to be knowledgeable about these issues and be prepared, if needed, to offer guidance to your users to help them deal with these matters.

After all, stopping plagiarism of your users’ work is not just in their best interest, but yours as well. The more unique content your site has, the more it can grow and tighter-knit it will be.

Conclusions

Being a community administrator is very hard work. Even a community of modest size can create a lot of headaches. Running such a site requires being a parent, a mediator, a guide, a teacher, a protector and a motivator.

As a former community admin myself, I know how challenging this can be, especially when controversy seems to be eating the site alive.

Copyright infringement of user work is just another worry to add to the already long list of concerns. Depending on the nature of your community, it may not be a problem worth much worry, on other sites, such as literature forums, it may be of a very high priority.

However, it is always worth thinking about and having a plan in place.

Because, as bad as having your community ripped off can be, it is much worse if there is no plan of action. If you have a strategy, you can quickly get back to worrying about spammers, trolls, flame wars and the other problems that come with running a community-based site.

Then again, perhaps worrying about copyright infringement isn’t such a bad deal after all…