Welcome to the Q&A Forum

My firm uses several websites. When I first came in house there were a lot of sites, but I took them down because of the content quality at the time. I am slowly building them back up.  I find that specific area websites can be very useful for pointing ads or specific campaigns, since many people want to know just about X concept I am very careful not to reproduce content and not to try to hide that the sites are owned by the same company. I hesitated to bring the sites back up until I got some confirmation from Matt Cutts that having more than one site is fine, as long as you follow good content and other SEO standards. http://www.brafton.com/news/cutts-on-similar-website-content-multiple-domains-duplicate-or-safe I link between the sites, but in an organic way. I.e. if I have an article on one site that naturally links to another site, I link it.  I also don't have a huge number of sites and don't expect to do so.

Great, Mark. Hope it works out!

It's good to be aware of the scrapers to see what they are trying to do with your content, and it can't hurt to ask them to remove it. Don't ask for a link, you never want links for sites that rely on bad practices like that, it can hurt you. This is most likely not effect you if left alone. If the scraper is grabbing from source code, then implementing a canonical tag in your content will help Google know where the content came from (but they probably already know).

Sort of.  It's per page, not per website.

I'm going to endorse Andy's answer as well as adding one here. His link to Matt's video is what I would add, but I wanted to address the redirect affecting ranking. The redirect is basically ensuring that you won't show in results for mobile users. You need a page to rank to even attempt to rank. You are sending the signal now that itunes is the right page for users, so that page will rank. The redirect is most certainly impacting your performance mobile and desktop. iTunes has desktop accessible pages as well and you are pointing your authority to them. Beyond that, there haven't been studies that I know of proving this just because it's a bad user experience on top of a bad search decision.

As others have mentioned, it sounds like these links have little potential value. You could always drop a few comment URLs, tweets, G+ posts to those pages to help them get indexed, but they would still pass very little authority and I can't say it would be worth the effort. Perhaps you could contact those same Suppliers and offer to give them a testimonial or find some other way to get your company linked on a more prominent page of their website. Think about what you can offer of value for their website.

Unfortunately, there's no quick fix for reversing canonicals. If Google is indexing the pages, it's probably fine - I'd double check them with a "site:" operator and see if they're showing up correct (titles, snippets, ranking for  exact-match terms, etc.). In some cases, I recommend adding self-referencing rel-canonicals (to counteract the old ones) and it never hurts to have a good XML sitemap in place in GWT. Again, though, you said you're getting indexed, so it may be nothing. If you want to Private Message me or contact support, we can try to sort out why we're still not crawling the other pages.

Glad to hear it! Yeah, patience isn't easy, that's for sure.

I disagree with mrcensorious and Dubs: I highly doubt that taking the time to change all of your URLs will be much of an SEO benefit, plus, changing URLs always brings a dip in traffic. Your current URLs are not so incredibly long that they're difficult to understand or share, and you already have keywords in them (I'm assuming they're in the "page" and/or "pagename" subfolder). As Google has been getting smarter, we've seen it place less and less emphasis on keywords in URLs and their structures, so my guess is, this would minimally help SEO right now (if at all), and probably wouldn't help in the future. Add on to that, whenever you make URL changes, you will always see two things: A temporary dip in organic traffic, as search engines see the new URL as an entirely new page and haven't attributed all of the links from the old URL to the new URL yet. A permanent dip in organic traffic, because 301 redirects don't seem to pass as much authority as a direct link. We never advise that our clients change their URLs unless they're going through a site redesign anyway and have to change them. So, I recommend you leave things the way they are!