These are cases of programmers creating takedown bots with false positives. Do the programmers know that there will be false positives? Yes. Do they not make a good faith effort to prevent those false positives? Probably. Good luck proving this in court though.
For published works like the Mueller report, one wouldn't need contentID. Matching the document's hash would suffice.
 Both things which could be copywrited, but I'll assume will not trigger the actual flag.
The trouble is, this is a group profit motive and people seem to think of profit motive mostly from an individualistic and zero-sum perspective.
They’re not stopping you copying anything - they just don’t want to host documents they’re not sure of the status of in their automated system.
Host your own documents if you don't think they’re right.
I'm not sure though how you feel they are violating copyright law, can you go into more detail on that?
Because they basically have the right to remove any content they host at anytime, regardless of if it is copyrighted or not.
And these are private companies, not public institutions, they are not letting you upload stuff because of some common good, they do it because it's their business model, why should they let you upload something that has a 0.1% chance of being copyrighted by someone that could then demand money from them.
Then they made it all paywalled so that was that.
I think their business has 'mySpaced' and fundamentally does not go with how people consume content. Nobody wants a PDF these days.
So why are they mentioned now?
Well, the report is wrong!!! It is a scanned document. So it is not digital. They could have written it with HTML5 but they are stuck in the past, twenty years out of date. PDF was okay back then but not now. Scanned images in a PDF are not accessible. You can't search it.
People who like PDF because they used it for legal documents back in the day have their arguments about why to use PDF. But if this report came from a single URL and was a tenth the size in HTML then nobody would have problems determining if the page was genuine or a fake - it would be in the URL.
Nobody would need to disperse copies of it over the internets. Just the one URL would do.
Really I think that this Mueller chap and the whole freaking government needs to be sacked and prosecuted for not making their work accessible. It is important to democracy.
It's about as bad as the mailman losing your letter. So what? If it was important, you would have insured/certified it.
No it's not. If mailman loses your letter 1 person won't be able to read what you wrote to him. If youtube blocks your channel nobody will, and if you depend on youtube for money your business defaults.
> If it was important, you would have insured/certified it.
There's no way to insure against copyright strikes as far as I know.
I did find some terms that allow Scribd to remove content for any reason and terms which purport to limit any remedy for such removal to "Don't like it? Then don't use it."
12.1 Scribd. You agree that Scribd, in its sole discretion, for any or no reason, and without penalty, may terminate any account (or any part thereof) You may have with Scribd or Your use of the Scribd Platform and remove and discard all or any part of Your account, User profile, and any content, at any time and without notice to You.
12.2 You. Your only remedy with respect to any dissatisfaction with (i) the Scribd Platform, (ii) any term of these Terms, (iii) any policy or practice of Scribd in operating the Scribd Platform, or (iv) any content or information transmitted through the Scribd Platform, is to cancel Your account and stop using Scribd.
7. Removal of Content. Regardless of which purchase option You have selected, Scribd reserves the right to modify or withdraw at any time any Scribd Commercial Content from access by You at the request of its publisher or for any other reason.
Host yourself. The operational and BW cost for hosting static content is ridiculously low.
And there is always BitTorrent if you don't even want to pay that.
Authors don't collect royalties. Absolute majority of authors don't live of royalties. Lets just kill this monstrosity.
If your business model comes with huge externalities for the society as whole... your business model must go.
2) The major studios don't really use YouTube, and Netflix and Hulu and Spotify don't use ContentID. If the entire site was destroyed along with all of their smaller competitors that do use it, they would only celebrate.
Which is honestly nothing against Scribd--there's just no point to using an e-book service to distribute a file every modern browser can open natively.
This is specious reasoning. The report could contain an independent copyrighted material, like a previously published poem verbatim, "used with permission". So copies could be automatically flagged for infringement of that material.
The "public domain" document is tainted.
This would be a derivative work of the material it is quoting. Derivative works aren't protected by both the original copyright and the copyright of the person who prepared the derivative work, only the latter. Since the US government does not gain a copyright on derivative works that means the entire derivative work is in the public domain. You can make copies of it, distribute it, prepare further derivative works (such as cutting out everything except the poem! Though maybe not a good idea to test that plan), etc.
The only exception to this would be (I think) if the report was created in violation of copyright law, but there's no way that this would not be found to be fair use. All the standard factors are in it's favor. There is a strong public good in it's favor.
My take away is as follows
Including copyrighted material in its entirety and original form in a different work does not make it derivative. It's original copyright stands.
A quick requirement for derivative work.
The derivative work must demonstrate transformation, modification or adaptation of the original work must be substantial and bear its author's personality sufficiently to be original and thus protected by copyright.