Apparently, through the use of a DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) complaint, you can have sites thrown out of Yahoo’s search index. If you file a DMCA report against a site, Yahoo will remove the “offending” site from Yahoo Search altogether, leaving no trace of the site in its index.

In fact, Yahoo’s system is set-up in a way that site owners with complaints filed against them are not allowed to defend themselves. Once Yahoo receives a DMCA complaint against a site, they act. Brian Turner brought this information to light over at Platinax.co.uk in a revealing report that also indicated the Platinax web site was made a victim of Yahoo’s practice.

Before we proceed, it is important to understand that these DMCA measures are in place to combat the growing pest of stolen content. Many unscrupulous site owners will not hesitate to take content from other people if it will give them a search engine boost. The DMCA option was introduced to combat these users. It is also important to remember that Yahoo is not the only search engine that takes action when DMCA issues are brought to light. As pointed out by Jenstar on the SEW Forums, each of the big 3 have DMCA measures in place in case someone files a complaint:

Google
Yahoo
MSN

However, the thread also states that people who have complaints filed against them can counter the claim, which brings us back to Brian’s article. While it may be true Google and MSN will allow you to defend yourself against DMCA claims, Brian’s article indicates that Yahoo does not, at least in Platinax’s case (in fact, Google makes the claims known to the accused, whereas Yahoo does not).

Because of Platinax’s removal from Yahoo’s index due to a DMCA filing against the site, Brian believes DMCA complaints can be used as an effective blackhat search optimization technique. He also believes it’s a system that’s open to abuse, and if Yahoo treats all DMCA complaints like they did Platinax’s, perhaps he’s right.

Let’s say a heated competitor is garnering better search rankings in Yahoo than you are. A DMCA complaint of copyright infringement to Yahoo will most likely have them removed from Yahoo’s index altogether, whether they actually committed any copyright violations or not.

This is puts too much power in the hands of a complaint system. If Yahoo does not make known the reason a complaint was filed against someone and does not allow the accused an opportunity to defend themselves, then Turner is quite correct: Yahoo’s DMCA solution is very much open for abuse. Unfortunately, representatives from Yahoo apparently don’t really see it that way.

During Turner’s investigation as to why Platinax was removed from Yahoo’s index, he spoke with Tomi Poutanen, the International Search Business Development Director for Yahoo who told Turner that Yahoo does not feel any obligation to report DMCA complaints and that their current system was not in a position to be abused.

Turner also reveals that no DMCA complaint was filed against the site in either MSN or Google. Just Yahoo. Perhaps that shouldn’t make a difference because a complaint is a complaint. At the very least, however, Yahoo should’ve given Turner and Platinax an opportunity to defend themselves, something Google and presumably MSN Search allows.

With Yahoo’s current method of handling these complaints, their system is ripe for abuse under the guise of false complaints that could result in innocent site owners removed from Yahoo’s index for no reason, other than what motivated the filing to begin with.

Like Turner indicates, if this is how Yahoo handles these complaints, it certainly appears as if Yahoo is lacking fundamental protection against false accusations and bogus DMCA filings, making DMCA complaints an ideal blackhat tool to use against more successful competitors.

Of course, one would like to think that Yahoo would investigate such a claim before they acted, but that certainly didn’t appear to be the case with Platinax.

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

Update:

Platinax is back in the Yahoo index, making Brian's and my arguments ring a little hollow...

oh well, the implication is still there.

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

A full update was actually posted tonight, just before the WPN article went out:
http://www.platinax.co.uk/blogs/bria...ax_relist.html

Sorry about not being quicker about that. :8o

I think the implications go past the individual example here of the Platinax delisting, and instead to the general treatment of DMCA filings in general by ISP's.

The delisting of Platinax was ascribed by Yahoo! search to a DMCA complaint (as per the quoted e-mail in the above link) - but the Yahoo! legal dept denied this was the case.

Despite the conflicting information, I'd like to also be clear that Yahoo! staff were very helpful once I was able to contact them, and I'm very grateful for their assistance in resolving this matter.

I think there's a general issue of concerns about DMCA procedures overall, not least because as indicated in the above link, Chilling Effects appears to state that a website owner does not necessarily need to be informed by ISP's in the event of a DMCA being filed against a site.

Certainly it seems that there are mixed issues about DMCA protocol as handled by ISP's - and that there is a very real need for increased awareness of the overall DMCA issues, not least how some ISP's handle them, as well as how to send a Counter Notice in the vent of an erroneous or even malicious allegation.

This is especially important when far more critical reports of ISP handling of DMCA issues have been made elsewhere, such as at Threadwatch:
http://www.threadwatch.org/node/2983#comment-17469

Overall, in the instance of Platinax, there was no overall harm done. However, a general platform of raised awareness for discussion of DMCA issues I should think is definitely a good thing for the internet community overall at this point, in my opinion.

2c.

__________________
SEO lab
internet marketing
business forums

Any Business that penalizes another Business for anything without having the respect or at least the process for the Business to defend their position or themselves . . . simply is not conducting professional business.

Face it! It is not professional. Any employee, competitor, or just a simple troublemaker doing his thing can put you in such a situation, without your knowledge. The next thing you know, you are left with a situation that occurred months prior and either an exorbitant expense to defend yourself, or no defendable position at all. And to top it all off, the penalizing Company does not offer you the opportunity of such defense anyway.

I will give you a TRUE example. SPAMCOP is an organization that claims to be a defender of the Internet. Their goal is the elimination of SPAM.

I have been on the Internet since about DOS 3. In all my years of using the Internet, which probably is longer than anybody at SPAMCOP, I have NEVER SPAMMED anybody. I don't SPAM anyone, anything, any where. So why would I receive an email from SPAMCOP telling me that I was not allowed to email another business?

To this day, I still have not yet ascertained the facts the led to my being assigned to SPAMCOP's Blacklist. And believe me, I tried to find out. I pleaded with SPAMCOP to allow me present my defense as I believed myself wrongly accused. I begged them to contact me and tell me what I had done. You know what I was told? They were hired by the people I tried to send email to, and they can block my email if they want to.

The end result: I never had the opportunity to defend myself from a false accusation. And, there's a little Record Shop in Hawaii that specializes in Island Music that lost about $5000.00 in lost sales.

Now, I am not Pro SPAM. I am as opposed to SPAM as you can get. And, I also am opposed to trickery used for Search Engine ranking. But even more, I am opposed to anyone accusing, penalizing, or furtherance of the act of doing so, anyone without the accused having an opportunity to present a defense for their actions. And, if you don't share the same distaste for such, you need to carry your Communist butt to the other side of the borders within which I reside.

I personally find it offensive that the Internet Populace finds marching to the drums of the major search engines acceptable. The irritation, expense, and loss of personal freedoms alone should offend any person of common sense. But, that topic is reserved for another soapbox in the future.

For this topic, it's simple. And if I have to tell you what their doing is wrong, you need to check your ethics.

And, just because you posted an update to the original article, doesn't mean I'm climbing down off this soapbox just yet!

__________________
When you are ready to promote your web site, visit mine at http://djam-promo.com

Thanks for the clarification Brian. Seems like Yahoo realized the error of their ways. :)

__________________
Former WebProWorld Admin
IntentionalFoul.com

I would prefer they left the site alone until they investigated it - for whatever they're investigating.

If any SE removes a site based on someone's complaint, and only replaces the site after they've investigated, this would still be an effective way to, say, take your competition off the radar during the biggest week of holiday shopping. The fact that everything got straightened out later would be little consolation to the person whose site was unavailable at a crucial time.

__________________
NEW! ChillyCool Web Digger SEO-friendly directory, no recip required
Get Rich Online in 387,923 Painful, Difficult Steps