Scribd sued over copyright
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
If they made it that easy to break copyright it was only a matter of time before someone sued.
EDIT: I dont mean to say HN/pg are at fault - I just mean they were providing an API along the lines of scribd.com/scrape?url=[url of the pdf] (which is/was what was used here) which scraped and saved the document. That's just asking for trouble.
Just like Google's cache is?
Also, scribd show ads right next to every content that they don't own.
The real issue is where the content comes from. The browser doesn't provide a document - it's a dumb conduit for the page you're after. Whether you paid for your browser (Windows) or it's ad supported is irrelevant since it is itself incapable of copyright infringement. This isn't true of Scribd.
Why not? It's a PDF reader that you pay to use by looking at ads.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=834352
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832142
There's already a great deal of discussion on the first of those, so it might be worth reading that before commenting here.
FWIW, I think that what scribd does is a Bad Thing(tm). I can image having to check every week whether something I've written and copyrighted has appeared on their site, and I think it's unsupportable that they say "It's your problem to check - tell us and we'll take it down."
Perhaps it would be interesting to require that any money made from having my work on their site must be transferred to me with interest. Further, to require that such accounting be made auditable. If they make money while my work is on their site in breach of my copyright, why shouldn't I get it?
Still a nightmare to enforce. Every author constantly having to check to see if their work has been pirated.
But that's the law. The DMCA states that service providers don't have to do filtering or checking before they're notified of a violation. Scribd (according to the article) is even making it impossible to re-upload a document taken down under the DMCA. So they're doing more than the law requires.
What would you have Scribd do? It's not like there's a database of every copyrighted document ever, so they can't blacklist documents.
if you want the youtubes, scribds, googles and weeblys of the world to exist, this needs to be the way the law works.
alternatively, you could shut down all user-generated content sites and there would be no company-provided hosting of any kind. but how is that really any different from your ISP?
EVEN IF you decided that everyone should be forced to set up their own web server and host their own content, the copyright owner would still need to patrol the internet for violations -- so your problem is still not solved.
so while, as the copyright owner, it sucks to have to police for violations, the system as a whole couldn't exist by putting the onus on the provider.
Yes, scribd is probably within the law, but they are acting in a manner that I find immoral, and I'm not the only one.
The upshot, as so many others have observed, is that copyright law is a mess, as is patent law. Completely absolving vehicles for theft such as scribd from any form of liability is wrong.
However, the law has never been about right and wrong, so it won't start now. I've largely stopped writing now, concentrating on personal appearances. That at least turns a tidy profit, and is difficult to duplicate without my knowledge. My other company relies on commercial secrets rather than paying through the nose to divulge secrets, only subsequently to have to pay to find if they're stolen, then pay again to defend them.
With regards scribd and its ilk, I know I won't get my way. Morals can't be policed, because laws will always be gamed. I don't like it, but I'll have to accept it. I just won't play. Apart from continuing to check for infringements I won't use their site. It's an old-fashioned view, but quite simply, it makes me feel grubby.
Scribd actually does do this:
[] By checking this box, I agree that I understand the
Scribd Terms of Service and Copyright Policy and that
my uploading of this material complies with those
policies and does not violate anyone's rights.Example.
I submitted here to HN a link to a PDF which is copyrighted. That has been uploaded to scribd without acknowledgement. When I contacted scribd to ask them to take it down they said it was the responsibility of the copyright owner to make a formal request for takedown.
Who ticked the box? I certainly didn't. Who checked that the person ticking the box had any right to do so? Scribd certainly didn't.
Scribd make no effort to ensure that copyright is not breached. There is no traceability. Their "efforts" are ineffective and insufficient.
Someone made a comparison with ISPs. The difference is that if I host material in breach of copyright, my ISP can cut me off. Getting back on is a pain, and costs money.
If someone uploads material to scribd in breach of copyright, there are no sanctions, there is no culpability.
It might be legal, but I believe it to be immoral.
I'm repeating myself. Perhaps I should shut up and go away before I get really angry.
They're potentially screwing me as a user - if I innocently click on a scraping link and import a PDF with no understanding who is then responsible?
I submitted here to HN a link to a PDF which is
copyrighted. That has been uploaded to scribd
without acknowledgement. When I contacted scribd
to ask them to take it down they said it was the
responsibility of the copyright owner to make a
formal request for takedown.
Who ticked the box? I certainly didn't. Who checked
that the person ticking the box had any right to do
so? Scribd certainly didn't.
Scribd make no effort to ensure that copyright is
not breached. There is no traceability. Their
"efforts" are ineffective and insufficient.
Someone has uploaded copyrighted material to scribd, and it's still there. Hence I conclude:
If someone uploads material to scribd in breach of
copyright, there are no sanctions, there is no
culpability.
No, really, I would, and I'm just being selfish. Currently I get very angry thinking about their existence, and if I learned that I was wrong I'd be happier.
Please.
If you can't, then I suggest that when you say:
... you seem to have a insider's view into Scribd's
back end. If not, then you're just bloviating and
making strawman arguments that don't really stand up.
In the case of "auto-importing" feature, things are much less clear. In that case, I can see your point.
I like the fact I can scrape things into Scribd from the web because it is a nice interface etc. And I think it's perfectly justified to ad-support that service. At that point they are an enabler, providing a service to view content similar to Adobe or Foxit browser plugins (i.e. a web version of such a plugin)
Where I think, personally, they crossed the line is in the fact that they scrape and store the document - what reason would they have, really, for doing that! And then they give you an API so sites can just set up the scrape for them automagically at the click of a URL - no need to ever go near the original source.
That's not just toying with copyright laws (however right or wrong they are) that just feels (to me) plain rude to anyone publishing a PDF of their content on the web :)
When I realised that I personally refuse to use/support Scribd.
If any Joe has the ability to use Scribd to violate copyright, then any Jane should be able to have it taken down if she has compelling evidence it's a violation.
The valid affidavit requirement in the DMCA is a strong deterrent to this kind of nefarious abuse.