

Scribd sued over copyright - talkingtiki
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/09/scribd-sued-over-copyright-by-jammie-thomas-lawyers.ars

======
ErrantX
Im not hugely surprised since I saw the Scribd links appearing automatically
next to PDF submissions here on HN.

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.

~~~
jrockway
_That's just asking for trouble._

Just like Google's cache is?

~~~
newsdog
Ah but Goggle is a big boy with lots of money. It's much easier to pick on a
smaller opponent.

~~~
DaniFong
The strategy may be in fact to take down a smaller case and use it as a
precedent to go after larger companies.

------
RiderOfGiraffes
See also:

<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.

~~~
zck
>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."

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.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
I think the law is fundamentally wrong. I think there should be some sort of
requirement on those uploading to assert that they have the right to do so,
and there should then be a means of pursuing those who upload material to
which they have no rights.

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.

~~~
apgwoz
> I think there should be some sort of requirement on those uploading to
> assert that they have the right to do so, and there should then be a means
> of pursuing those who upload material to which they have no rights.

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.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Although you quote it, you are ignoring the second half of what I said.
_"There should be a means of pursuing ..."_

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.

~~~
talkingtiki
You probably should get really angry, cuz 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.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes
Hmm. Here, extracted from the comment above, is the basis of my point of view

    
    
        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.
    

From those facts I concluded:

    
    
        Scribd make no effort to ensure that copyright is
        not breached. There is no traceability.  Their
        "efforts" are ineffective and insufficient.
    

There was a breach of copyright, and certainly I wasn't contacted. I'm
assuming the author wasn't contacted - scribd certainly don't appear to be
proactive in contacting the author of everything uploaded.

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.
    

Now, would you care to point out the strawman argument? I would be delighted
to learn that a service I have hitherto thought of as the scum of the Earth
are, in fact, noble and just.

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.
    

then your logic is faulty.

------
dreyfiz
My problem with Scribd is that anyone can violate copyright on Scribd, but
only the victim (the copyright owner) has standing to report it. On their
copyright page, you can submit a DMCA takedown request, but the sample notice
starts with "I am the exclusive rights holder/duly authorized representative
of the exclusive rights holder". What if I'm neither, but I am a random web
surfer who knows that Scribd certainly shouldn't be publishing a PDF of a
recent NYT bestselling book?

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.

~~~
talkingtiki
Because "compelling evidence" can be easily fabricated. Just ask all the
writers that have had their works expunged from the Internet because an ex-
wife, ex-writing partner, or angry reader decided to claim copyright
infringement in order to mess with them. It happens all the time.

The valid affidavit requirement in the DMCA is a strong deterrent to this kind
of nefarious abuse.

------
aston
Kiwi Camara has a bit of a controversial past himself:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_at_Harvard)

------
mattwdelong
Personally, I would like to see the authors sales before and after appearing
on Scribd. Personally, I often search for reviews and/or excerpt from books
before I actually go out and purchase them, much like I do with music and
albums. Scribd has been an awesome resource for this practice. Otherwise, I
would probably not purchase anything without reviewing bits of it beforehand.
IMO, she may also profit from this exposure. Again, this could not be
determined until we see before/after sales. (if she had any at all seeing the
age and nature of the book, its likely to be outdated.)

------
talkingtiki
Think what you want about Scribd, the case is really loopy and weird.

------
alex_c
Class action lawsuit immediately makes me think of sharks smelling blood in
the water.

------
ghost11
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"

