November 9, 2007

Attack of the Splogs—One Of Our Posts Copied 152 Times Without Attribution

Erick Schonfeld

110 comments »

Here at TechCrunch, there is nothing we love more than when one of our posts gets linked to and talked about. And like the majority of other blogs out there, we try to be good citizens by linking back to any source from which we excerpt. But there is a growing minority of spam blogs, or splogs, that indiscriminately take entire posts from other blogs and present them as their own.

For example, here is a screen shot from one random splog that just reposts TechCrunch’s entire feed with no links back to TechCrunch or even acknowledgement of the source:

tc-splog-2.png

Just for the record, taking any blog’s entire feed and republishing it as your own content is not okay. Notice that the only difference between this splog and TechCrunch is all the Google ads splattered everywhere.

We are not alone in this. Any blog that produces fresh content on a daily basis is an easy target. Google makes it economical to create such splogs through AdSense and then rewards them with traffic through its search engine. Google (and the other search engines) need to stop rewarding such behavior.

We knew the splog problem was bad, but we didn’t know how bad until earlier this week, when I did a post about Attributor (a new startup that can track who is copying your stuff all across the Web). I noted that Attributor found one TechCrunch post that had been copied in one way or another 572 times (not all of them bad).

Attributor catches all matches of blocks of text, so I asked them to break that number down. First, they threw out anything that was less than a five percent match, which left us with 467 matches. Of those 315, or two thirds, linked back to the original post. So that is the good news. It appears that most bloggers are good citizens. But 152 of them, or fully one third, did not link back. And of those, 115—or 25 percent of the original—were plastered with ads, making money off our work without so much as a link.

Here is a screen shot of the original post, which covered the beta launch of Hulu:

hulu-tc.png

Now here is a screen shot of one of the splogs (notice the similarity?):

hulu-splog2.png

And another one (complete with a Jessica Alba cheese ad—although it arguably does give the headline an unintentionally different nuance):

hulu-splog-1a.png

You get the idea. Admittedly, this is completely anecdotal. It is only one post. But it does point to a larger problem. Other bloggers out there, have you been splogged today? Probably.

  • Sphere It

Trackbacks/Pings (Trackback URL)

  1. Tips Dr.com
  2. TechCrunch Japanese アーカイブ » スプログ攻撃~ここの記事はリンク抜きで152回転載されている
  3. Blight Watch » Blog Archive » Google Profits From MySpace Attackers

Comments

RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. faceloop

    Your starting to sound like Prince. Its just content that you created…right?

  2. gilltots

    would you be willing to pay for a solution to this illegal copying?

    i have one. here’s how it works - instead of allowing people to get the content digitally, they have to “subscribe” to it, and every morning a kid on a bicycle will go around and throw a rolled-up paper containing all the newest blog entries on the front step of every subscriber’s house.

    i should patent this, it’s going to be huge!

  3. Randy

    Wow, what those filthy splog slobs are doing is is incredibly illegal. I hope you big dogs with popular blogs like TechCrunch, who have a bit more resources than us common folk, find a way to squash these pathetic criminals for everybody’s sake. Get on Google’s case, I say. Google has BILLIONS OF DOLLARS –– you’d think they’d have the resources to pull a quick team of 3 or 4 guys and gals together who can write a quick algorithm to differentiate a legitimate Techcrunch post from a stolen one.

  4. iHero

    So is it illegal? Are you going to litigate someone? If you’re not defending your work than your part of the problem — right?

  5. John Kolbert

    I think its sad that this is such a problem, but what really can be done about it? One thing that adds to it, that this article mentions, is the ease with which one can open an Adsense account. I have a younger brother who decided to start a website with just a template he downloaded. And within hours he was already approved by Adsense to place ads on, even though he had no content.

    It’s all probablly those same guys who try to spam my comments boxes day after day after day after….

  6. jc

    Jessica Alba is hot

  7. Automatt

    More posts about how P2P trading is cool and the music publishers just don’t get it please

  8. magnusdopus

    Hopefully Google will buy Attributor and stop working with these sites.

  9. Michael Arrington

    There’s an interesting side effect to all of this. Since Google doesn’t really see these as “bad” sites yet, all links in a post (say, to a startup) are multiplied 152 times. That really helps the startups being linked to.

  10. Marco

    There’re even Wordpress plugins to rip off other bloggers automatically. Check this out:

    http://devthought.com/wp-o-mat.....greggator/

  11. Faramarz

    Michael, I hope you guys are looking at legal options to stop or minimize this. Nobody produces derivatives of NYTimes and claim it as their own because the consequences are dire. You guys step it up and I’m sure other’s will follow. There needs to be more done than just a simple slap on the wrist.

  12. Steve Spalding

    I am going to have to give a point to some of the snarkier commentators.

    I think “University Update” along with about 2 dozen .info sites have been pulling my full feed and wrapping it in Adsense for about 6 months now, unfortunately, it is just the landscape that we exist in.

    As publishers, unless we want to pull a RIAA and try to litigate every .ru top-level domain that runs a splog-nest, then all we can do is innovate around it. Having taken a look at some of these splogs, they are really only picking up a pittance for their effort.

    There is something to be said about the conversation that authors bring to the table. Content is cheap but personality can’t be as easily ripped off.

    All I hope is that we don’t get so up in arms with the sploggers that we start sounding like the music industry. Wouldn’t that be ironic?

  13. Michael Arrington

    Automatt - i understand you are trying to do a pot calling the kettle black type statement. I have two responses.

    first - copying music for your own use is different than taking content from others, saying it is your own and reselling it.

    second - we aren’t going to start suing people for doing this. It would be an incredible waste of time, and it wouldn’t even slow the copying let alone kill it. The search engines need to evolve to deal with this kind of stuff, and effectively keep it invisible. But the problem is those google ads…Google makes money of these sites. A lot of it in the aggregate. So they have an economic incentive NOT to fix the problem.

    Anyway, its interesting stuff and that’s why we posted.

  14. Rich T.

    I post some of Techcrunch articles on my blog and I always include a link back to the original post here and I include your copyright info at the bottom of the post. I love reading your articles and use some on my blog with the hopes that my visitors will follow the link back here and see why I enjoy Techcrunch so much (and to provide them with useful info). My blog is mixed with articles I write and articles that I get from writers and blogs that allow the reprint as long as their links and personal information is kept intact. Many have a little “About the Author” block of text they want attached to their article if you reuse it. In my experience many writers of these articles are happy that their material is being spread around as long as all the links to their websites/blog are included. This helps their websites gain traction on the search engines and provides a lot of incoming links to their sites and blogs. I’m sure that many people actually click through and visit these site. I checked your site before I started posting articles I get from here and didn’t see any specifics about using/not using your articles. I figured it would be ok if I did it with respect to Techcrunch and the writer. I will stop using it if you rather I didn’t. By the way, I only use a small percentage of your articles and would never even consider using your entire feed.

  15. Jon

    You can pretty much thank Google for this phenomenon. They have made it attractive for people to do this, and I wouldn’t be surprised that 30% of their revenue comes from underhanded techniques such as this, and good ole fashioned click fraud.

    In fact, I think google has done more to clutter up the internet (indirectly of course) with junk sites and ad farms than any other company in history.

  16. Erick Schonfeld (fake)

    so Prince is splogging now?

  17. Pop Secrets

    Do you consider this a splog: http://www.pop-secrets.com

    I made it for my fiance so she could check all her gossip blogs from one page. I realized a bunch of people wanted this, but don’t understand RSS and feed readers, so I made it public and threw up a bunch of ads to recoup hosting costs.

    I link to all the original sources and I made sure to only crawl sites that specifically say it is ok to use content from their RSS feeds with ads. Some sites have 2 RSS feeds, one that can be used with ads (usually is a summary with no pictures) and one that has the full data but can’t be used with ads.

  18. John Kolbert

    Honestly, I think copying any article, whether you attribute the author or not, is pointless and a sign that you just can’t think of anything on your own. Of course we all see interesting posts and link to them, but mine usually accompany my own summary and thoughts rather then just a verbatim rehash.

  19. Steve Elbows

    I find that whenever I sort Google Blog search results by date, there is tons of splog stuff clogging the results.

    I know quite a few vloggers who were alarmed and disappointed when RSS made it so easy for sites to revlog their stuff without attribution, or with a lot of adverts, or failing to honor creative commons or other licensing terms. People were most excited about RSS being used to allow viewers to subscribe to their stuff, ala podcasts, and hadnt always considered the other uses such as sites the feed to copy their stuff in a fully automated way. This problem hopefully peaked for vloggers during the crazy year of the video site megahype, where so many new video sites emerged and some were desperate to make it look like they had lots of content, and so took liberties.

    Such matters ignited some discussions about exactly what the ‘non-commercial’ in certain cc licenses actually meant, whether a few google ads counted. In the end, verbal backlash from people who felt ripped off was enough to get most, but not all, of the offending sites to mend their ways, but people trying to track this stuff got overwhelmed by the number of sites emerging, could often feel like a losing battle.

    Personally because I didnt want to see any tech used to try to limit such things, as it would also impinge on legitimate viewers, so I advocated the approach of trying to come to terms with this loss of control of distribution. The theory being that if you embed your brand & real site url in the content, then anybody watching/reading it on some ripoff site, who finds it worthwhile, will be likely to check out your original site, with will no doubt be better looking. Its not like the splogs usually have any advantage for people to read the stuff there, people usually get to them by accident via search results.

  20. Darren

    Jon is spot on, been around for an age and will be until there is a backlash against this. All we can hope for is the backlash and hope that Google can’t justify the revenue gain against the bad press.

    That said Mike’s got a good point about the additional links for a new site.

    Interesting on the real winners and losers :)

  21. David Mackey

    Erick - I agree there is a very large problem here, and it is fed by Google. Not only are there splogs, but there are also individuals who advertise on Adsense simply to direct to a spam page that is filled with Adsense ads. By bidding low they are able to make money by displaying higher cost ads.

  22. Automatt

    Michael, thanks for the response. I understand your points but it seems like they are giving away your content for free, not reselling it.

    Sure, they have google ads, but so do all of the .torrent sites.

    So, P2P distribution, which I’ve seen your site endorse, shows ads to make money from other people’s content, same as these guys. It bothers you here because in this case it is your content.

    I think it’s a little ironic that the splog pictured has fewer, less annoying ads than the actual TechCrunch site, and as a result probably loads faster too.

    Of course, it probably doesn’t have the comments of the original site (yet).

  23. Nate Weiner

    The timing of this article is ironic, I just got my first post dugg yesterday, and the single thing I was blown away by was the number of blogs I found in the trackbacks that were literal copies of my post. Redonkulous.

  24. David N. Welton

    It’s all about incentives, and since Google makes so much money on it, why should they stop until they have a good reason to? I’ve got a friend who makes upwards of 1000 dollars a month from a similar setup. That’s not bad money for passive income.

  25. Steve Elbows

    Regarding Pop-Secrets:

    I think attribution is key. Mst content creators didnt want to be complete control freaks, or prevent all reuse of their stuff. Attribution turned up again and again as a crucial factor in how people reacted. For me it makes a big difference as to whether I label you leech, or think your aggregation is of value to the world.

    And as Pop-Secrets seems to include links to the original site’s permalink for the post, I dont think you are a terrible offender. But its always nice to go the extra mile, such as the prominent ’sources’ box you have on the page.

  26. Michael Arrington

    automatt - my response:

    - don’t confuse torrent sites with actual users, who download content for their own use.

    - we don’t endorse file sharing, we just see it as inevitable and unstoppable.

    - putting ads around content is reselling content.

    Don’t take this disrespectfully, but I think you are being intellectually lazy here just to try to say we are being hypocritical. That’s fine, but it’s more interesting to be a real part of the conversation.

  27. heddy

    I’m with automatt. There’s no real difference between what these guys are doing and what the bittorrent trackers Duncan Riley’s always on about are up to. They’re both making money off other people’s content. The splogs cut and paste your stuff and get money from the ads. The torrent sites link to content they’ve found elsewhere and get money from the ads. But now, call the wahmbulance because it’s YOUR stuff getting ripped off, not some organisation everyone hates.

    Hell, you’re probably not even losing a cent from this crap - maybe the other blogs are making a few bucks from your content but is it really going to make people visit them rather than you?

  28. Yannick Desjardins

    I guess you guys will need to add DRM to your blog now, lets start an iBlog store where we can plug our computer to get the blogs.

  29. Hardy Johnson

    You might try looking at copyscape.com to help you with these types of issues, they have a tool which can find copied content. When you make your living on the internet you definitely need to know who is out there scraping your sites. I would also recommend implementing a defense against evil spiders/robots, there are a few out there if you look.

    Hope you get the splogs wiped out.

  30. Automatt

    So by extension, if there was a site with all of the TechCrunch content on it, attributed to the proper authors, but without any ads, you’d be okay with that, because it wouldn’t be reselling your content?

  31. Wil

    Having also had my content ripped off and used to sell Google AdWords, I’m incredibly frustrated with Google’s (non-)response to this issue.

    AdWords’s abuse reporting system is worthless. I have yet to ever get a response from them when I report obviously stolen content, or something like a spam post in my comments section linking to an an AdWords-funded site.

    “Do no evil” my ass. They’re profiting off of this more than the sploggers are. Until Google decides to stop funding these assholes, it’s going to remain a profitable enterprise.

  32. heddy

    “putting ads around content is reselling content” - and you call the other guy intellectually lazy? Your content is being taken and put elsewhere and someone else is making a few bucks from that content. Torrent sites link to the content someone else has made and make a large amount of bucks from that content. There are ads all over torrent sites. Have you looked at mininova lately? Checked the pages on thepiratebay? seen the explicit porn ads most of them carry?

    Where’s the great difference? That torrent sites don’t actually host the content? Come on….

    (And you may not personally endorse file sharing, but some of your writers certainly do.)

  33. Larry

    Ironically, I first read this on Yahoo’s new “reader” as a pop up on their incredibly slow/painful new my.yahoo homepage. It scrapes your RSS and presents it in their own window. It’s not just headlines anymore!

  34. Robert

    This is a very bothersome problem.

    I have student class projects, for instance, that have this happen hundreds of times each week.

    Nonprofit clients, people we’ve built sites for, have the same problem on a daily basis. They experience from dozens of daily instances to many hundreds of weekly instances.

    Student personal blogs are flooded with the trackbacks from these thefts (and that’s what it is … theft, plain and simple).

    Forgetting, for the moment, that it is simple theft and bad practice, consider the site maintenance required by all of these victimized sites on a daily basis. It is horrible.

    The only thing that will stop the practice is an absence of financial reward. I agree with you. I’ll go ya’ one further…

    Google, Yahoo!, MSN, et.al. need to fix their broken models. They aren’t just cracked, or sort of broken … they are built (if only partially) upon this kind of fraud. And that’s what it is. Fraud.

  35. Steve Spalding

    RSS is a use agnostic distribution system for better or for worse. Would it help if Google killed off the splogs? Yea, it would but in the intellectual property war content producers will always be on the losing side.

    We can do things to minimize the -damage- that unattributed copying leads to, but getting into an arms race with these folks is just a form of ego stroking. What we should all be focused on is providing -value- that others can’t easily copy. It’s possible, that’s why few people actually go to these sites unless they see an accidental attribution.

  36. Useful Concept

    I have gone back and forth with my own blog on the [more] option. Should I send out full feeds, of the first few paragraphs with a link to the full article? I go both ways on this. Certainly having the more solution will help with those sploggers as at least they don’t get the full content.

    Google does downgrade their sites as it finds their content in duplicate of other content and thus measures it as less relevant. That said, you are correct about who is really making money. Google with the adwords. This is why I only allow my ads to show via google search. NEVER on content sites. Just too much crap generating worthless clickthroughs.

  37. Thricer

    I like the Alba pic. More please.

  38. dantinpa

    Move to Short Text RSS?

    This is why my friend at http://www.spendmatters.com went to short text rss. It makes your readers click to get the full feed, but prevents the problem you describe (I think).

    http://www.spendmatters.com/in.....t-Text-RSS

  39. Harsha

    I had a similar problem. I used to get traffic based on a single image search. Some wise guy(s) hotlinked my image on their site and google de-indexed my site and indexed theirs instead. Now there are 3 or 4 search results based on this image I published initially. Totally weird. What did I do to need de-indexing?

  40. Michael Arrington

    i think the main thing we’ve learned here today is that TechCrunch needs more pictures of Jessica Alba.

  41. faceloop

    and less hypocrisy

  42. Michael Arrington

    faceloop - defend that statement.

  43. chat boy

    I think that deserves an “Amen!” brother.

  44. chat boy

    Amen to the Jessica Alba post that is.

  45. John Biggs

    one of the best ways to defeat this is to occasionally swap the images in the with something fairly racy and upload new copies of the image to the post itself. While the readers see boring web 2.0 stuff, the splogs are showing man-on-goat love. However, do not do this before Google starts sending out updates because google caches the images and your man-on-goat love goes out for all the world to see, as we discovered a few months ago.

  46. Amit Chowdhry

    in the words of arnold schwartznegger:
    stop whining!!
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=Rjy2RWO_C7s

  47. faceloop

    Mike…

    You have ripped the music industry (and musicians) over and over for attempting to protect their content. The industry (and select musicians) have been labeled the bad guys for complaining about it - while those who are stealing the content have been awarded white hats…or at least a pass.

    Now, when we find out your content has been stolen, the thieves are somehow worse than those who steal the music. In this new instance, the thieves wear black hats.

    Hypocrisy is the act of condemning another person (the music industry) for an act of which the critic is guilty.

    You cannot rip on the record industry for whining about content thieves if you are going to do the same when it happens to you.

    For the record…I think stealing content - music or blog posts - is bad.

  48. Velioncho

    They must be laughing off this - you just made them more money by posting this today, they got even more hits to their sites.

    Just curious, how would Google’s code determine which are the original source?

  49. Andrew

    This is an interesting debate.

    Biel or Alba?

    I vote Alba..

  50. The Foo

    it’s simple — how can one say it is OK to copy someone else’s material or content (word for word) and put it as your own?

    Even for one moment that it was not reselling or making money, it is wrong — really don’t care how you twist and turn it. I’ll be pissed if someone did that to me regardless of whether they were making money or not. To me it comes down to more of ethics and integrity than anything else. It really shows the kind of person you are too.

    No matter how you look at it, it’s still Plagarism. I find it very disturbing that people even recognize the fact that it might not be.

    Like spam, it’s probably going to be a never ending battle. It would probably be a matter of time where Google will do something about it — pretty sure about that one as they aren’t blind and oblivious to what’s going on.

  51. Alan Wilensky

    There is worse to come:

    As we speak, there are a very few ‘republishing engines’ that actually take feeds, forums, and web sites and ‘massage them’ using thesauri and other sophisticated NLP techniques. The result? It’s my f-ing articles, but plagiarized by a machine!

    I saw this while doing research at FT R&D in South City, - no it wasn’t FT’s work…..no no no, it was made by a company in the Netherlands as a demonstration for their text mining products.

    Get this: It even crawls and downloads PDF and Doc attachments, massages and edits them, and reconstructs a new sites for republishing!

    Wait till that shit hits the tubes!

  52. Thricer

    faceloop,

    Wow, it’s not a 1:1 comparison. File sharers don’t make any money off downloading, while these rip-off sites do. Can the distinction be any clearer?

  53. AJ Batac

    Andrew, I vote for Biel!

  54. Thricer

    +1 Alba :)

  55. Michael Arrington

    faceloop - you, too, are being intellectually lazy, both by distorting our position (saying something is inevitable is not saying it is right) and by drawing a very poor analogy (users consuming content without paying for it is different than taking someone else’s work and saying it is your own).

    Not only that, but we really aren’t complainingg about this. just reporting it because it’s interesting.

  56. cweeb

    Hmm, no response to Automatt’s last point #30…

    “So by extension, if there was a site with all of the TechCrunch content on it, attributed to the proper authors, but without any ads, you’d be okay with that, because it wouldn’t be reselling your content?”

    What a great great point. Michael must be ok with this or his whole music/video tirade breaks down.

  57. Brad Jasper

    My big problem is there’s no way to contact the splog because it’s run anonymously. Of course you can provide a Creative Commons License (and you should) but splog owners wouldn’t care about that.

    This is a frustrating problem because it clogs up trackbacks with legitimate discussion.

    Most splogs use Blogger, maybe if Google implemented some sort of Report Splog feature we would see this problem diminish.

  58. Brad Jasper

    I just noticed Blogger does have a form for reporting splogs, I’m curious how well it works: http://help.blogger.com/?page=.....mit=Submit

  59. heri

    just include at least one link back to one of your previous posts, and voila, the job is done!

  60. Joe

    Splogs are definitaly here to stay. Instead of people complaining about them, figure out a way to use them to your advantage.

    Many times splogs arent just used to make money from other peoples content, but for backlinks to other sites.

    From an advertiser standpoint. Unless there is some extreme deception involved, i dont see a problem. A person finds a splog or MFA site through google and then clicks on an ad. Although it took a couple clicks more to get there the person should find what they are looking for. Depending on how targeted the ads are. The splog is just the middle man. Your still delivering your hopefully targeted visitor to a targeted advertiser. There is nothing wrong with being a middle man in business.

    From a content producers view. it sucks. Someone else is making money from your hard work. Personally when someone does something like that, and really bothers me, i find out as much as possible about them and their operation and try and find a way to fuck it up.

  61. cedric

    The only people that are really getting ripped off here are the advertisers. They end up paying fors ads on splogs with clueless visitors, instead of showing up on Techcrunch. That’s probably why the conventional wisdom among Adword advertiser is that the content network simply sucks.

  62. Erick Schonfeld

    @30, and @56, yeah, as long as you link back, that is okay, especially if there are no ads. The issues are A) do you cite the source and B) do you benefit financially?

    That said, scarfing the entire feed and reposting (even with links) is somewhat lame.

  63. Alex H

    How interesting is this.

    TechCrunch might be starting to feel the heat.

    Ever since the start you have been against “big guys” - content owners. It finally got to the point where you decided that destroying the traditional music industry model was the ideal way to go, a way which actually currently supports hundreds of thousands of independent acts around the world.

    You swear on services like YouTube for providing free access to content and pronounce free content as the only way to go. And you hate on corporations for not putting the content they have put millions of dollars into for free online. But wait! You interestingly publish all of this while running ads, making revenue of over $100,000 per month off of your content - see the contradiction?

    And then - you feel the “crunch”. Splogs. People ripping your content and posting it otherwhere for their own benefit. It’s a similar idea to YouTube is it not? That same YouTube that should house the worlds media for free. The same YouTube that brings content to hundreds of millions of people without any compensation to the content owner at all.

    Nice way to kill a business model hey? Well, maybe in the future, blog advertising won’t be a viable money maker for you in the future either. Wouldn’t that be bad? I mean, who knew you couldn’t protect the very thing you have created!

    Tell me, if your advertising dollar decreases because your content can be found in 123 different places, won’t you too be feeling like there is less incentive to create content?

    But there is a good side. You may slowly begin to realise that this high horse against the media industry - which provides you with beautiful music, movies and television, was on to something way back then when they were trying to protect their content. Only for TechCrunch to immaturely throw their business model out of the window.

    PS: No, I have no affiliation with any of the Splogs. I didn’t even know the word “splog” existed before you posted this.

  64. cweeb

    Great, look forward to you all calling music/video download sites lame in the near future.

  65. Srini Kumar

    plaigarism by robots ?!? what scifi movie is this again ?! the plot as it seems to be unfolding: google feeds the owners of plaigarism robots, who make more robots, and then make robots that make robots; robots overwhelm human writers who give up and get day jobs in marketing or something; the end of intellectual history as we know it follows… can “the matrix” be far off?

    -s

  66. www.carversation.com

    who cares, you guys get good traffic and make money. nothing will ever take your market share. you’re not living in a fantasy, people will steal and copy.

  67. Emmett Jones

    Splogs suck. I doubt anything will ever truly be done about them. A lot of people talk about posting summaries in your feeds, and stuff like that, but all of that will only help so much. At least you TechCrunch guys are making decent money. Us “small frys” are getting our blogs copied and the people copying the information are making more money than us.

    It’s definitely up to you big, reputable websites to lead by example though. I doubt a grassroots campaign of individual bloggers will do much.

    …I like Alba as well.

  68. Frank Dux

    “Google (and the other search engines) need to stop rewarding such behavior.”

    Pretty sure holding google responsible for policing content on blogs is not the right answer…

  69. Infiniti

    Dude I liked this blog until now. When you started to get like all DRM, proprietory over your work. Yes this is my first comment on this site. I hate to see you guys go down.
    Yes I have adblock. Are you going to start whining about Adblock now?
    Its the internet, grow up. Its almost like who ever makes it big acts like they aren’t bound by its practices all of a sudden.

  70. William Tildesley

    So? Who cares…
    Look my blog gets ripped off but I don’t go moaning about it.
    Do something about it instead of whining to your 400K.
    Why don’t you keep a personal blog so you can rant about this kind of stuff instead of posting it on this site.

    You could have turned this post into an interesting discussion about the effect of ’splogging’, etc, etc, but alas you didn’t.

    Oh well back to the Google Reader.

    BTW: Don’t get me wrong I hate slopping as much as the next person, but whining about it ain’t going to do much.

  71. Random Dude

    Funny, I first read this post in its entirety on another blog:

    http://www.bigblueball.com/for.....post224473

  72. Randy

    Yes, it’s true that section 106 of copyright law states pretty clearly that it’s illegal to distribute copies of copyrighted property. Judges typically rule that you are in violation of this law when you drop a copyrighted file in your Kazaa ‘Shared’ folder, flip a switch, and make it available for distribution.

    And yes, a file sharer who has violated section 106 has caused monetary damages to the copyright owner, insofar as the artists’ work can no longer be sold to anyone who received the illegally distributed copies of that work. And yes, these damages are the exact same type of damages that The New York Times would incur if somebody were to scan their Sunday Paper, take it to a printing press, then lug the bundles out onto a street corner and begin distributing the illegal copies, which is the same crime that’s been committed here against TechCrunch.

    So, if it is indeed true that TechCrunch bloggers have spoken out against RIAA litigation, I think they need to tone it down a bit. Don’t be so defensive, the whistleblowers here have a valid point. As a matter of fact, were you to take the rats who run these piracy splogs to court (and I hope you do, as a matter of principle !!), you’d be citing the same short little section of copyright law that The New York Times would in their case against the asshole on the corner with the bootleg copies on their paper, which is the exact same section the Music Recording Industry cities when they drag music loving grandmothers, teens, and young children into court to bankrupt them for committing their egregious acts against humanity.

    You know, what’s silly is that peer-to-peer file sharing would be 100% LEGAL if the groups who made these file sharing programs bothered to follow the law and simply design their programs in such a way that the contents of the ‘Shared’ folder were automatically deleted after the first (and only) download. Giving somebody your property is not a violation of copyright law.

  73. Erick Schonfeld (fake)

    Yeah Mike - the take on “let’s hold Google responsible” is just, for lack of a better term, retarded. Anyone who understands technology knows there is no non-trivial way for Google to detect fake vs. real. It would require a massive change in digital copyright capabilities for writing to enable this.

    As for the “intellectually lazy” argument - let’s look at it this way. In both cases:

    * someone is stealing content (splogger, music downloader)
    * someone is profiting on the fact it is being stolen (splogger, bit torrent site)
    * the content owner is losing revenue from this theft (blogger, record label)

    I don’t see what is lazy about this argument. Great try though.

  74. vic berggren

    It happens to me daily but I’m too small of a site to get anything done about it. TechCrunch on the other hand Erick isn’t so perhaps TC can lead the charge to do something about this and let us readers financially contribute to the cause so that we can get help with this too.

  75. dev

    Maybe hold Matt M. responsible for creating Wordpress. Maybe that’s a ‘better’ start.

  76. dev

    Don’t get us wrong, we hate splogs as well. There has to be a better way to police this.

    Maybe the industry can dedicate solving it the way ‘email’ spam was solved.

    As for the Google angle, it would definitely help if Google confiscates their (made for) Adsense accounts and hit them where it hurts.

  77. Bart

    Stop complaining about TC going DRM … they’ve said several times in the comments that they are simply pointing out the situation and that a comparison with P2P isn’t quite the same.

  78. Michael

    I use the RSS Feed Signature plugin for WordPress by Brendan Borlase
    http://www.smackfoo.com/plugins/sig2feed/

    It enables you to assign a copyright notice to the feed and a link back to your site.

  79. adam

    Interesting indeed. I’m always amazing at people’s ability to make money off of someone else’s’ work.

    I don’t even understand how these sites have ads from google. (?) Last time I signed up for adsense…. my site that was going display the ads had to be ‘approved’… and they turned me down because I had a picture (of myself, btw) that had some random photographers copyright watermark on it.
    I suppose these ’sblogs’ have some way around that too.

    Meh… consider it a pat on the back to the techcrunch guys… at least they think your content is worth stealing. :)

  80. Xponent

    Once upon a time, a file downloader downloaded a song, I Need Somebody by The Thieverators. Once the downloader listened to it he/she realized it was actually Help! by The Beatles and not a cover version but the original album recording.

    Later, when some lower wattage types were told the story, they were convinced that the crime was illegal file sharing.
    Being unable to understand the concept of intellectual laziness, they lived happily ever after.
    The End

  81. amarquart

    I’m curious, does anyone else read The Huffington Post. I have been for the last several weeks. I even have linked to stories in my own blog posts. What I have noticed, they have sploggy tendencies. In most cases they will change up the ‘Title’ of the post, then they have a little badge for the ’source’ (not linkable) and then they literally repost the first two paragraphs. I have run across this on a couple of stories. Started noticing it more after reading another like post to this one TechCrunch did.

    Would you call that splogging?

    Because I find what the HuffPo is doing as a little like cheating. Especially when I first started reading it, in my RSS feed, they can post up to 20-30 times a day. Somewhat overwhelming. Then I started noticing ‘This’(what we are talking about) and reposting of the same post at a different time of the day.

    I hope it is ok I ‘called out’ another, needed to for comparison. I am not saying they are sploggers, just…where is the line?

  82. John Galt

    Intellectual Laziness? Lets try Intellectual Dishonesty. But don`t be surprised by that folks and don`t expect Mike to admit it because the joke is on you - always has since the day that emperor went out in his birthday suit and only the little boy called it like it was. We are in the middle of the parade and have been for a few years. The Emperior in this case has a court of ministers like Larry Lessig, Michael Arrington, Joi Ito, Tim O`Reilly who have been peddling this version of the Birthday Suit for a few years now. Michael is too smart not to know the truth and in his mind I beleive he justifies his dishonesty by just calling it pragmatic. Its just the way of the world. Well if you champion a culture where it is ok to steal then don`t be surprised when you are the victim of it. A is A.

  83. anant shrivastava

    Hello Michael,
    I am a new subscriber as well as a new blogger,
    but i have recently been a victom to this problem too, but my blog post was not copied by some splogs but by a reputed blog without and link back.

    http://blog.anantshri.info/200.....bianadmin/

    the only protest that seemed possible to me at that time was that i wrote an entry in my blog so that both post’s could be connected.

    It does’nt matters to me if a copy past is done but a link back atleast in these startign days is a good thing to me.

    yours
    anant

  84. Deniz Akay

    There is a simple solution for this. Purt the original link in the post at the beginning. Your feed will always have a linkback to your site.

  85. .LA Fan

    Michael,

    Welcome to the club! You talk about being indirectly harmed by Google via AdSense (which I can totally appreciate). You’re not alone. Google is also harming others indirectly by creating confusion in the Dot-LA domain space by operating its website at http://www.google.la/ for users in the Country of Laos eventhough the Dot-LA ccTLD has been licensed by LA Names Corporation for the City of Los Angeles for more than FOUR YEARS. Go to http://www.la/about.php. Google is creating confusion in this domain space for several Dot-LA website operators. Just go to http://www.minirank.com/tld/la/0 to see a listing of the top-ranked Dot-LA websites that are making a genuine effort to operate their sites in this domain space only to have a Goliath confuse the user with its website. Welcome to the club…

  86. Lily

    You are absolutely not alone at this. My latest blog have been copied all around the web, and I mean not the usual automatic copying caught by Akismet, I mean manual copy/paste stealing of content.
    It is absolutely annoying. Not only that they copied the content with the images, they also copied my del.icio.us button for God’s sake!
    I really hope that there is/will be a legal way to deal with this.
    Cheers

  87. flip

    I was cool with illegal downloads until i got involved with producing a music album and understood how difficult it was to create, produce, release, market, produce videos etc and still try to make a profit for the artist and the company, in the current state of affairs. Copying any form of content from the owner and profiteering from it is piracy.

  88. Shams

    Techcrunch is very famous and well-known. So some people will target it. When you are at the top, you are most visible. Hope soon there will be some kind of softwares that can stop these piracies.

  89. eukhost blog

    It is not good to copy other work but in this user generated content era you can not just stop some one to spread content like those do with rss syndication etc, however it is moral responsibility to take permission from the original creator before posting it and the bloggers should refer the link as original source.

  90. John

    How about creating a “name and shame” website. If anyone come across a splogger enter their blog name on this site.

    “The following bloggers are known to plagiarise and pinch their material from others. We think they are pretty cheap” or some similarly righteously indignant admonition and ostracise them from the Honourable Order of Bloggers or whatever the Blogging Guild is called.

    Maybe even capture and publicise their IP address and block their future attempts to access other blog sites henceforth.

  91. Axel Wolf

    The 30% figure given by Jon in #15 is probably too low; I’d say the ads in splogs and other made-for-adsense (MFA) sites account for about 50-60%. Another 30 or so percent are from all those rubbish price comparison and product listing sites, the rest (hardly more than 10%) is probably genuine.

    As for the quality of visitors you get via Google Adwords, you can pretty much forget about it nowadays. Even if you restrict your ads to search results only, it’s just no longer worth it. We started with the service back in 2002 and used to have a monthly budget between $3K and 5K before we gave up entirely on Adwords last year.

    Basically, all of this is the result of Google’s business model. The sad fact is that Google actually NEED splogs to maintain their current rate of growth. Just as another poster said, “Do no evil, my ass”.

  92. Stu

    Axel: You are incorrect. We get great results from adwords. It is probably b/c of the specific products you are selling. but I can tell it works very well. We sell high-end audio equipment and are very competitively priced. You can’t blame adwords for performance when you sell a highly commoditized good and/ or price them non-competitively.

  93. Jon

    I actually noticed this happening for a few of my other blogs about 6 months ago while looking at my site stats… I believe that the minute we begin defining what is and isn’t theft based on the medium or intent, it’s already too late for us all. Google (and others) can easily get rid of splogs, it’s in their own long term benefit to do this, and I am sure they are well aware and testing a system to heavily penalize sites doing this.

    If you don’t have money to buy your movies, rent them. If you don’t have money to buy music, listen to the radio. If you have no originality of your own and wish to simply leech off others, go for it but always remember that what goes around comes around with far more force then you may realize.

    I would say the ONLY exception to this rule is public data produced by gov or communally. TechCrunch isn’t a communal effort nor produced by the gov, as such, copying is simply copyright infringement, no IFs ANDs or BUTs.

    Jon

  94. Axel Wolf

    Stu, YMMV, as always.

    We develop very competitively priced software (a niche product with only five or six direct competitors worldwide) where Adwords worked extremely well for some years. Each dollar spent resulted in 2-3 dollars revenue. Today it’s just a waste of money.

  95. Stephen

    This post is about plain old plagiarism. When has plagiarism even been generally acceptable or even legal? All those that want to look at this as TechCrunch hypocrisy are getting confused by the splogger’s revenue model.

  96. Jay

    So what you’re saying is, it has the exact same content, PLUS a nude picture of Jessica Alba in the middle?

    Well, TC, I guess this is goodbye.

  97. Steve Ballmer

    They got me too!
    I dont mind, the truth must be spead on thick and often!

    http://fakesteveballmer.blogspot.com

  98. Iriseon

    Almost every commenter here is guilty of being a splogger to some degree and are lashing out at TechCrunch for pointing it out. The issue is not the issue. The best defense is a good offense.

    Slow down…all that frantic copying has bolstered your headline scanning skill but lowered your reading comprehension. Details, details. There is no outright whining or calls for litigation or a movement to remove all the sploggers. It is an article about blatant full-blown for-profit blog models that don’t even try to create content, garnering a measly trickle of revenue from cut&paste filigree in a nest of advertisements. Read it again after the next Ritalin dose.

    Methinks thou dost protest too much.

  99. Rick Cook

    Well, you’ve given me the text for my next sermon. (Okay, so it’s a blog post at Heresy, Pornography and Treason.)

    I do have a few practical (?) suggestions for you. The first is to watermark your copy. Not your pages, your copy. That way any robot who scoops it up will also get the “TechCrunch” all over it.

    The second suggestion is to personalize your posts. That is make the material truly yours by things like repeated mentions of your site, multiple links to related articles on your site, adopting a more personalized slant, etc.

    Both of these go to the problem of attribution. The sploggers aren’t going to go to the trouble of teasing this stuff out of your posts, especially the rewritten copy. That’s too much like work after all.

    There are a couple of legal-type things you can do without turning into a junior-jackboot version of the RIAA or spending a ton of money.

    The first, and most important, is to copyright your blog. Make sure every post is copyrighted and incude a statement of terms of use in the TechCrunch site. This can be as copy-friendly as you want to make it, but specifically deny use to sploggers. This puts you on a firm footing legally.

    Next, and almost as important, is complain long and loud to Google about all the AdSense ads the sploggers are using with the stolen material. With luck Google will pull their AdSense agreements. Even if Google does nothing on your specific complaints, if enough bloggers complain about the misuse of their posts, Google will be forced to deal with the problem.

    And finally, there’s that ol debbil the DMCA. File DMCA takedown notices against the egregious offenders with their ISPs or blog services and force them to take down the offending articles. Automate the process and keep doing it every time one of these guys reposts another of your articles. The sploggers will find easier prey soon enough.

    Now, on the subject of hypocrisy. I’ve preached from the very beginning in Heresy Pornography and Treason that while free copying of material is an inevitable part of our brave new online world, theft for profit is not.

    For the morally tone deaf among you: I’m saying it’s unstoppable, not that it is all right. As an author I’ve had stuff reposted without payment or permission. I may not like it, but I recognize I can’t stop it and I’m not losing any sleep over it. Okay?

    But that’s not what’s going on here. Unlike people randomly reposting TechCrunch articles with or without attribution, people who steal content to sell it, whether directly or by loading their stolen content with AdSense ads, are in a different class, both practically and, at least in my mind, morally. Sploggers can be stopped because there’s a money trail.

    But what, some of you ask, about the torrent sites that are loaded with ads? The answer is that they are vulnerable because unless they’re doing business through the late, unlamented, Russian Business Network they can be tracked and shut down.

    Why aren’t they being shut down en masse? Because the RIAA and their ilk have chosen instead to conduct a campaign of legal terrorism aimed at intimidating the average downloader in the hope of scaring them out of the practice. (In other words they’re crazy as a gang of bedbugs and not behaving rationally.)

    And the copiers for profit should be stopped. Copying and reposting without economic gain is homage. Reposting for profit is theft and should not be tolerated.

    –Rick Cook

  100. Fabian Schonholz

    Guys …. hypocrisy is inevitable. Whether you like it or not we are all guilty of being hypocrites. The question really is the degree and nature. When we look at other’s problems we can more successfully attempt to be objective or at least take a higher intellectual ground. But when it comes to out “stuff”, that high intellectual ground does not exist.

  101. Rick Cook

    Finally, albeit somewhat reluctantly because it verges on spam. My full post on this is at http://heresypornographyandtre.....h-and.html

    If Erick feels this is over the line he has my permission to remove it.

    –Rick Cook

  102. Jessica Hickok

    Don’t worry Michael Arrington…these intellectually lazy people can steal your blog post content, but obviously they can’t respond in these comments as eloquently or as compelling as you do.

  103. Ian Kemmish

    “second - we aren’t going to start suing people for doing this. It would be an incredible waste of time, and it wouldn’t even slow the copying let alone kill it. The search engines need to evolve to deal with this kind of stuff, and effectively keep it invisible. But the problem is those google ads…Google makes money of these sites. A lot of it in the aggregate. So they have an economic incentive NOT to fix the problem.”

    The only interpretation that the first half of this paragraph bears is that you’re content for this plagiarism to happen. So why raise it in the first place?

    The second half of the paragraph is a neat illustration of why economies based on ideas proposed by people who can’t follow a thought through to the end generally collapse in a heap. In what sense is plagiarism “money for old rope” that being paid by Madison Avenue to write narcissistic op-ed pieces isn’t? Big fleas have littler fleas, upon their backs to bite ‘em….

  104. Stephen Paul Weber

    I have this problem all the time. I have my CC licence information on the bottom of my posts on my blog and in my feeds — so my name and licence show up on the bot splogs, thus giving me credit at least.

  105. wade

    We have this problem. There is a, well almost a mirror of our blog, out there. Every post we do, in it’s entirety…

    Our blog
    http://blog.outdoorzy.com

    Outdoorzy Poser!!!
    http://www.newsalloy.com/feed/203753/

    Nutz!

  106. wade

    By the way… they also have an RSS to that page…

  107. bilgi yarışması

    There is a simple solution for this