For those keeping track, Google announced in April they were very close to launching a new filtering system, dubbed “Claim Your Content”. The system would give content owners automated tools to identify copyrighted material for removal. Later, in July, an attorney representing Google said they were planning to roll out Claim Your Content in September.

The industry relaxed a bit. Bloggers rejoiced. Lawyers started to look for new sources of litigation.

It was a great step for the online content economy – at last, the industry would have the transparency and accountability required to support the motivations of those who create and publish valuable content.

Today is the first of October, and still no word from Mountain View. And while everyone waits, some point out that Google continues to profit from sites with unauthorized copies of original content.

Is Google delaying the launch to milk even more out of its immensely profitable search engine? I doubt it. A better explanation for the delay might be the realization of the major challenges involved in getting this right.

You might ask, what’s hard about anything for Google? Here’s what I think are the six reasons it is particularly difficult for Google to do this right:

1. Removal across Google’s main index. Everyone focuses on YouTube’s responsibilities as a hosting site, but since Google is the world’s leading search engine, shouldn’t Google also scan and remove instances of pages with that video in the broader Google index, even when hosted on another site? That’s not an unreasonable expectation, particularly if – as at least one analyst believes –Google is already applying digital fingerprinting to content to improve their web indexing and eliminate duplication.

2. Removal from AdSense network. Google’s AdSense is the fuel that makes much of the online economy go. So if Google removes a video from YouTube but it shows up on another site that has AdSense ads, why shouldn’t the owner expect that Google would remove those ads – as Google’s own policy promises?

3. Removal across the Web. Google has a commanding lead with YouTube, but there are hundreds of thousands of sites that host or embed videos. Without a Web-wide solution, publishers will have no visibility into content popping up on the latest social network, blog or hosting site. Unless Google can make those content claims count across the Web, no individual site has much incentive to go legit, since they know this just gives the edge to less conscientious competitors.

4. A solution for all media types. Video may get all the press, but text is still the Internet’s navigational currency. The text on your site powers your ads and search rank, but text content also supports splogs and useless made-for-AdSense pages. Images make the Web worth viewing, yet nine out of 10 Web images may involve infringement. Can Google expect to bring all types of media together in universal search results, but only let you claim your content when it is a video?

5. Available to publishers of all sizes. I’m sure Google gets this one – they practically invented the “long tail” and realize that success is not just about satisfying Viacom and Disney. But that means that any publisher large or small must be able to stake their claim and have it count.

6. Independent and unbiased. For publishers to feel confident in a content claiming system, they must believe that it works without conflict of interest. Since Google controls and monetizes most search results and puts ads across more content pages than any other ad network, what extra steps must Google take to gain the confidence of publishers that their claims will always count, and that questions of fair use will be resolved objectively?

A long list for sure, but nobody said it would be easy. There’s no doubt Google believes in the potential of the online content economy – that’s why they paid $1.65 billion dollars for YouTube. The question is: Given Google’s unique role in the content economy, are they really in a position to make it work?

What do you think is a must-have for Claim Your Content? Any predictions for its eventual roll-out date?

As a product manager for Del Monte Foods, I found “Place” or distribution the most frustrating of the 4 P’s – it took millions of dollars and several months to get my product on the grocery store shelf. And once it was there, I had limited visibility into what happened once it left the warehouse – forcing me to make major decisions based on fuzzy data points.

If you are publishing content, the Internet has eliminated the barriers to get in front of users. However, you lack insight into what happens to your content after it leaves your site, and, more importantly, you lose control over monetization.

Steve Rubel describes it as the “Cut and Paste Web” and offers three strategies for thriving. Increasingly, we’re finding that publishers view their copied content as an opportunity to extend their brand and drive traffic back to their site. On the other hand, when controlled distribution is mission critical, it’s easy to empathize with publishers who view copied content as a problem.

Whether you view copied content as a problem or an opportunity, the Internet is too important a distribution channel in which to be blind. This is where Attributor can help. We’re excited to be enabling leaders like Reuters and the Associated Press to forge ahead with their digital strategies, and we’d like to help you too.

I’m constantly creating lists. Mostly, I follow the to-do list format to reassure myself that I am having a productive day. Other times, I use the classic Pro/Con grid, but somehow this always makes the decision more complicated.

Consider this my personal attempt to cut through the always changing, often confusing online content economy with a Top 10 List.

#10 Your content is being copied all over the place. Whether you are publishing a book or writing song lyrics, your work is appearing in social networks, blogs and web sites. Don’t you want to know where else your content is going and how it’s being used? With this knowledge, you’ll make better decisions about what kind of content you produce in the first place.

#9 It’s time to level the playing field. The big search engines and ad networks (like Google) thrive on indexing and monetizing other people’s content, and as a result, they have a lot of information — like how readers discover your content and what marketers are willing to pay to advertise on it. Maybe it’s time for a level playing field where you have your own source of information on where your content is being used, where it is being indexed and when the ad networks are making money on it?

#8 You can focus on the matches that matter. You don’t have time to sift through thousands of matches per day to find 10 truly actionable ones. You need to be able to focus on the most interesting matches –as defined by you. Maybe you only want to see matches that have ads on the sites or matches on sites above a monthly traffic threshold. Perhaps you are interested in those that aren’t linking back to you or those who have posted an exact duplicate of your most valuable content.

#7 It’s yours, dammit. You invested time and probably money creating your content. Why should someone else get the credit and the traffic?

#6 DMCA takedown notices aren’t the only option. As a content publisher, the law is on your side, and sometimes there’s no alternative to a DMCA takedown notice. But maybe those should be the exception instead of the rule. There is a middle ground where both parties can share in the benefits – either through a link back to the original source or revenue share.

#5 The Internet isn’t slowing down. It’s no surprise that more consumers are choosing to consume more and more of their content online. The online channel is too important to not have visibility.

#4 Fewer lawsuits. By taking the subjectivity out of the Fair Use debate, it’s easier to reach a negotiated outcome, share revenue and avoid costly litigation.

#3 No more holding back. With web-wide visibility, you no longer need to erect barriers to view your content online or hold back your highest quality work. You know your readers probably prefer full-text RSS feeds to partial-text, and now you can give them what they want.

#2 You’ll be smarter. Now you can answer questions like ‘How much commercial value does my content have off my site’, ‘Which of my content is spreading the furthest within social networks’ or ‘What licensed content clicks back the most’.

#1 You want more traffic. You will be amazed by how many sites use your content without providing a link back to your site. If you can find the sites that are copying and streamline the process of requesting links, you can drive direct traffic and secure better rankings in Google results.

Got another reason ? Please share them in the comments .