Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

We have a meta question for reporting sites which do not follow Stack Exchange's content attribution policies.

As purely a matter of curiosity, what actually happens when these sites are reported? How does StackExchange handle them?

Do we just report them to Google and ignore them, or do we take more decisive action (like a DMCA)?

share|improve this question
We have top men working on taking down these sites. Top. Men. – Richard J. Ross III Jun 9 '13 at 6:35
Remember that in theory, we (the authors of the content) could file individual DMCA takedown requests against these sites. I figure if lots of us do it, we could cause quite a lot of annoyance. No idea about how much paperwork it would be, though. – Pëkka Jun 9 '13 at 7:42
Using DMCA is like signing a pact with devil, or even worse. But those spammers are there for google, remove them from index and they will starve to death. – Danubian Sailor Jan 10 '14 at 14:01

I think that generally speaking, nothing happens to those sites.

Jeff did say here:

We're collating all the links and we'll be doing something with them soon -- they should follow the rules of the attribution license

But all I saw is maybe one or two sites that got actually closed since being reported and good chance they were closed regardless of "our" actions.

I couldn't find more official (i.e. from Stack Exchange employees) posts mentioning this, but common sense tells me it's simply not important enough: Stack Overflow is big enough to always be on top of Google results. Even if copycat come to be second, Stack Overflow is still first.

It's frustrating, it's enraging but it's just a nuisance.

share|improve this answer
While your point may well be true in general, I thought I remember SE employees talking to copycat sites a number of times, and making them conform to the rules. Not sure where those conversations went, though – Pëkka Jun 9 '13 at 7:25
@Pekka didn't find either, maybe you remember which sites? – Shadow Wizard Jun 9 '13 at 7:30
Nope. The only thing I can find is stuff like (where the site seems to have gone offline eventually) – Pëkka Jun 9 '13 at 7:38
The only reason I'm not accepting this answer currently is because I'm waiting for a more canonical answer. Suffice it to say, though, this answer is very good. – Emrakul Jun 9 '13 at 17:45
@KnightswhosayNi From experience, only part (small part by that) of those questions ever get official answer. Let's hope this one would get some love from the team! :) – Shadow Wizard Jun 9 '13 at 17:50

StackExchange Inc. can do little to protect our copyright: they don't hold any copyright on the StackExchange network posts, they merely are licensees of the content.

Reports are presumably acted upon in some way if the infringing website significantly harms their advertising revenue, an act which however is not illegal in itself. Or if the StackExchange Inc. trademarks are abused (does that happen often? I've yet to see one such abuse).

To actually get something done and protect the cc-by-sa content, the only effective solution is generally for the copyright owners (the post authors) to file complaints with the website admins, hosts, registrars, advertisers etc.

Source: experience handling hundreds of infringing mirrors of the Wikimedia wikis (some links).

Update: my first attempt already made some infringing mirror go offline (unless it's a curious coincidence). Make people respect your copyleft work!

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .