Antikopipast
I think almost everyone who has been seriously engaged in publishing materials on the Internet (on his blog or in some other format) is well aware of the new Russian word “copy-paste”. For those to whom it is not clear, I will explain the meaning. The term is derived from the English copy / paste, and usually means copying someone else's text, photographs, or any other materials without the author's consent, and often without any attribution at all or with reference to the wrong source.
The nature of such a phenomenon is similar to that of the spontaneous illegal copying of commercial products, including programs, music and films. And if specifically, it is the influence of the social environment, formed by the national mentality (“What am I, fool - to pay for it when everyone around does not pay?” - a rhetorical question to himself). But now I would like to touch on this topic in a narrower area - precisely in relation to the distribution of “free” materials with unlimited access on the Internet.
It is worth starting with the fact that 99% of those who deal with copy-paste do it without realizing the reasons why this is bad and wrong. And this is bad because “harmless”, as it may seem, shifting information from place to place, may affect external entities in relation to copy-pasteur and not in the best way.
')
In particular, the mass distribution of the same material leads to a decrease in relevance among the links found by search engines. In turn, this leads to a leakage of traffic from the source to its clones. In practice, this is expressed in the fact that even with a unique and precise phrase from the text, it can be difficult to find the original resource on which this text was published, and not to get caught before it on advertising websites that are parasites. In addition, the re-publication of the text, without specifying the author and a link to the source, leads to the fact that visitors to the site-parasite will, by default, take for the author of the one who published this text. And this is an indirect violation of copyright.
The moral is that you should never forget about the responsibility for any manipulation of information in the public network, and that this network naturally imposes certain requirements regarding the ethics ("hygiene") of its use. Even the most "secluded" place on the Internet is not hidden from the thousand-eyed Google robot and, accordingly, the millions of all those who know how to use it.
Of course, I'm not so much an idealist to believe in the reality of this concept in the next many years within the framework of Runet, where a Creative Commons logo on someone’s blog does not do more good than a dubious spell such as "who steals is that fool" and it’s ridiculous to talk about possible legal liability. Therefore, the issue of protection against unauthorized information leakage from the site is now more relevant than the topic of educating the unconscious youth and the other contingent that provides this leakage.
Ways to protect the content of websites from copying are currently invented many. But most of them suffer from the fact that they are thoughtlessly paying for the increased security level by the convenience of access to information. Here are some of these wrong methods:
Summarizing this list, we can say that the text, whose copying is necessary to prevent, in any case and in any form should not be posted on the Internet at all. And even better - destroy for reliability along with the carrier. Nevertheless, approaching the requirements for reality, we can reformulate the formulation of the problem.
Instead of trying to prevent copying, you need to make sure that all copies contain a mandatory reference to the source. Such a link, firstly, will retain copyright, and, secondly, will increase the citation index in the search engines of the original site, raising it to the first (or one of the first) places in the search results.
To achieve this is often not so difficult, because All copypasters usually “work” according to the same predictable pattern: the content honor of the page, i.e., the main body of text, is copied unchanged, and the title is usually replaced with its own “variations on the theme”. In addition, a small introduction may be added (the average individual does not add more than one or two sentences), but the latter fact does not carry significant significance.
So, in order to bring the link to the “home” site along with the content, it is not enough just to add it to the bottom of the page. With a high degree of probability, such a link will not be copied, especially if it is framed as a separate element, and not an integral part of the information block. It is much more effective to mention the original source in one way or another within the text itself, if possible. In general, it is best to do this in the introduction or conclusion. In addition, it is useful not only to put a hyperlink, but also directly specify the URL, because links when copying are often lost if HTML is rendered from the browser as plain text. In this case, for aesthetic reasons, it is desirable that the link was short and readable. For example, http://paradigm.ru/posts/184 .
Of course, this method is also not sinless. Due to its use, there is an increase in the amount of text due to perhaps not very necessary information. Therefore, it should be applied intelligently. And, of course, not forgetting the quality of the material itself.
PS: The reason for writing this post was ~ 240 copies (perhaps there are more of them) of one of my previous notes that Yandex had found. It would be funny if someone copied this article.
The nature of such a phenomenon is similar to that of the spontaneous illegal copying of commercial products, including programs, music and films. And if specifically, it is the influence of the social environment, formed by the national mentality (“What am I, fool - to pay for it when everyone around does not pay?” - a rhetorical question to himself). But now I would like to touch on this topic in a narrower area - precisely in relation to the distribution of “free” materials with unlimited access on the Internet.
It is worth starting with the fact that 99% of those who deal with copy-paste do it without realizing the reasons why this is bad and wrong. And this is bad because “harmless”, as it may seem, shifting information from place to place, may affect external entities in relation to copy-pasteur and not in the best way.
')
In particular, the mass distribution of the same material leads to a decrease in relevance among the links found by search engines. In turn, this leads to a leakage of traffic from the source to its clones. In practice, this is expressed in the fact that even with a unique and precise phrase from the text, it can be difficult to find the original resource on which this text was published, and not to get caught before it on advertising websites that are parasites. In addition, the re-publication of the text, without specifying the author and a link to the source, leads to the fact that visitors to the site-parasite will, by default, take for the author of the one who published this text. And this is an indirect violation of copyright.
The moral is that you should never forget about the responsibility for any manipulation of information in the public network, and that this network naturally imposes certain requirements regarding the ethics ("hygiene") of its use. Even the most "secluded" place on the Internet is not hidden from the thousand-eyed Google robot and, accordingly, the millions of all those who know how to use it.
Of course, I'm not so much an idealist to believe in the reality of this concept in the next many years within the framework of Runet, where a Creative Commons logo on someone’s blog does not do more good than a dubious spell such as "who steals is that fool" and it’s ridiculous to talk about possible legal liability. Therefore, the issue of protection against unauthorized information leakage from the site is now more relevant than the topic of educating the unconscious youth and the other contingent that provides this leakage.
Ways to protect the content of websites from copying are currently invented many. But most of them suffer from the fact that they are thoughtlessly paying for the increased security level by the convenience of access to information. Here are some of these wrong methods:
- Disable the context menu in the browser using client scripts. The effectiveness of the method does not withstand any criticism, because for a real Jedi, bypassing this kind of “protection” is usually a matter of a few seconds. However, a side effect of this technique is considerable irritation caused by the lack of the usual details of the browser interface at the right moment (after all, the context menu is not only used for copying, but copying does not always mean the theft of materials).
- Splitting a large text of the article into several pages. In principle, this method only indirectly prevents copying the text, greatly reducing the convenience of this process. The main reason for using splitting is usually artificially generating traffic inside the site and increasing the number of ads shown. To protect the method stupid and again ineffective.
- Exotic ways of displaying text (Flash, Java applets, or simply displaying text as pictures). I will not dwell on the enumeration of organs that should be torn off by designers for the application of such ideas. First of all, this is another method of reducing the convenience of access to the materials of the site, and only then - the protection option.
- Publish text as a PDF. This method is not bad, but again it has its drawbacks. First, search engines have long been able to successfully convert PDF to HTML. In addition, an additional requirement is imposed for access to the content — the presence of a plug-in installed in the browser or a program for viewing PDF.
Summarizing this list, we can say that the text, whose copying is necessary to prevent, in any case and in any form should not be posted on the Internet at all. And even better - destroy for reliability along with the carrier. Nevertheless, approaching the requirements for reality, we can reformulate the formulation of the problem.
Instead of trying to prevent copying, you need to make sure that all copies contain a mandatory reference to the source. Such a link, firstly, will retain copyright, and, secondly, will increase the citation index in the search engines of the original site, raising it to the first (or one of the first) places in the search results.
To achieve this is often not so difficult, because All copypasters usually “work” according to the same predictable pattern: the content honor of the page, i.e., the main body of text, is copied unchanged, and the title is usually replaced with its own “variations on the theme”. In addition, a small introduction may be added (the average individual does not add more than one or two sentences), but the latter fact does not carry significant significance.
So, in order to bring the link to the “home” site along with the content, it is not enough just to add it to the bottom of the page. With a high degree of probability, such a link will not be copied, especially if it is framed as a separate element, and not an integral part of the information block. It is much more effective to mention the original source in one way or another within the text itself, if possible. In general, it is best to do this in the introduction or conclusion. In addition, it is useful not only to put a hyperlink, but also directly specify the URL, because links when copying are often lost if HTML is rendered from the browser as plain text. In this case, for aesthetic reasons, it is desirable that the link was short and readable. For example, http://paradigm.ru/posts/184 .
Of course, this method is also not sinless. Due to its use, there is an increase in the amount of text due to perhaps not very necessary information. Therefore, it should be applied intelligently. And, of course, not forgetting the quality of the material itself.
PS: The reason for writing this post was ~ 240 copies (perhaps there are more of them) of one of my previous notes that Yandex had found. It would be funny if someone copied this article.
Source: https://habr.com/ru/post/288718/
All Articles