Off-topic: Why do people put [scribd] in a post title when linking to a pdf?
Wouldn't putting "[pdf]" in the title be more accurate?
I will never put a link to a PDF again. I submitted a link to someone's work, and scribd has effectively appropriated the traffic for themselves. It smacks of theft.
I contacted scribd to say that the author had not authorised them to take a copy and asking that they remove it, but they are aggressive in their defence of their actions. They require legal statements from the owners, and even then I'm not convinced.
Only submit a PDF if you're happy to have it copied without permission.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=690526
I never put that link to scribd, never uploaded it.
I'd love to discover I'm wrong, as I think it's utterly iniquitous.
Scribd is pretty handy for reading the documents because it lets you read them in a more dynamic way (bookmark etc.).
If their saving it then that's another matter. Im still down with doing that at times - but only on documents with permission. Automatically is just bad manners!
If that's true then it's even worse. They use the owner's bandwidth, and they prevent people from going to the owner's site. Getting the traffic to my site is important, especially if I'm paying for the bandwidth. I'm sure many people make papers available on the understanding that people are therefore coming to their site.
I really don see the difference between Foxit reader browser plugin and Scribd.
The bandwidth is going to be used anyway so that's a bit of a moot point perhaps?
In terms of site traffic... yeh the argument has merit. But tbh I cant recall a time I clicked a PDF link and then later surfed the related site.
I see what your saying though - I can see how it would annoy someone (personally if they arent taking creidt then it wouldn't worry me too much - I consider the content more important then where they read it per se)
Can anyone explain what Scribd is trying to accomplish? pdf is already an open standard. Both require a third party viewer. Until iPaper doesn't use flash there is no reason for Scribd to be the youtube of documents.
Although an embeddable document viewer that allows you to force layout, keep the data on your server, supports math notations, and doesn't use flash might be worth having on the internet.
When I write something and put it on my web site it's because I want people to visit. Their engagement with the site lets me get sponsorship to run the site, and potentially speaking engagements. Speaking engagements lose me money, because I take unpaid leave from my job in industry to do them, but I think enrichment in education is important, and I'm willing to give up money to help make it happen.
Think of it effectively as volunteer work.
If material is ripped off wholesale and stored somewhere else, or if essays/articles are shown on another site without the visitor coming to my site, I lose my traffic, potentially I lose my sponsorship, and certainly I lose my opportunities to provide enrichment in schools. Doing what scribd does undermines that.
Other people have other reasons for people to visit their sites, but mine alone mean that I hate what scribd does. I think it's unethical and parasitical.
I do this all the time. When I read something interesting I figure the author probably has other interesting things to say. I wander around for a while and see what else they have to offer. I've found some real gems in that way, and made some life-long friends.
I don't mind if my material gets read elsewhere, but I use it as an enticement to engage with my site. When someone else points to it, that purpose is fulfilled. When they copy it elsewhere, it isn't. When they additionally reload it everytime, I get no benefit and and pay for the bandwidth.
I can't see anything good in their actions at all.
(it took me a while to figure this out :) stumped me for an age when I first noticed)