5 ms·

If true, that seems downright unethical to me. I've actually met (and possibly drank with) some of the Scribd founders and they seem like really nice, smart fel

by cglee 17y ago

If true, that seems downright unethical to me. I've actually met (and possibly drank with) some of the Scribd founders and they seem like really nice, smart fellows, but this practice really shouldn't be encouraged (unless there is a good reason behind it other than to promote Scribd).

DTrejo 17y ago
PG wants scribd to do well, and so HN auto-adds Scribd links (I believe this is how it works).
- sgk284 17y ago
  Yea, it's no different than the Green Stats thing at the bottom of the page. He's just helping people out by using their stuff. Can't blame him for that.
  - mos1 17y ago
    It's very different than the Green Stats. One is simply using a service, the other involves rehosting content without the request or permission of the author or content owner.
    - natrius 17y ago
      If the author doesn't want their content mirrored, they're free to throw up a robots.txt file, assuming Scribd respects that. The internet requires middlemen to make multiple copies of content for each request to successfully complete, so I'd call an HTTP 200 status code implied consent.
      - falien 17y ago
        Every request from a different place ultimately is fulfilled by the original host barring some extreme caching (which you can also use http headers to instruct against). This is completely different than the case of it being taken from the original host and put up on scribd, which could easily be a copyright violation. An HTTP 200 response is implied consent for an end-user (or even a robot) to view it, not to redistribute it. AFAIK scribd does not crawl for content (with them then hosting that would be blatantly illegal in the US) so robots.txt is not really applicable.
        Zak 17y ago
        AFAIK scribd does not crawl for content (with them then hosting that would be blatantly illegal in the US) As far as I know, they don't do that, but if they did, how would it be different from Google cache?
        mos1 17y ago
        Google cache doesn't beat your main site in the rankings, and it clearly cites you as the original source of the data. That said, it's irrelevant because they don't crawl for content. The HN admins are way out of line with their practices on this one. They're making illegal copies to help their friends at Scribd, and doing so without the requisite consent.
        natrius 17y ago
        Search rankings have nothing to do with copyright law, which seems to be the basis of your argument. You have yet to give a decent argument that materially distinguishes Scribd from Google's cache, caching proxies, or even the basic routing required for any request on the internet, which copies content by definition. See also: http://docs.google.com/viewer http://docs.google.com/viewer
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        mos1 17y ago
        I was just responding to Zak's comment about differences, giving a few. It wasn't meant as a complete argument of anything, or any sort. That said, two points: 1) doing so is not just immoral, it's against Scribd's TOS. 2) your claim that re-hosting content without permission is indistinguishable from transport makes clear that your beliefs are so different than mine that I cannot possibly find a way to communicate with you.
aminuit 17y ago
Initially (or at least a couple of years ago) if you submitted a PDF, the link would only be available through Scribd. It was a topic of much discussion. See here for example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=195431 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=195431
sounddust 17y ago
It's certainly there to promote Scribd. I don't believe that HN has ever claimed to be an independent, impartial site. It's on a subdomain of ycombinator.com, it is heavily frequented by people who are either involved in YC, or people who want to be. Any story that is linked to a YC company is going to get a disproportionate amount of attention here, and I doubt that YC will hesitate to integrate links/widgets from YC companies as they've done with Scribd, CO2stats, and others. I'm pretty sure that one of the purposes of the site is to attract people to YC. If you want to know why people like myself (who are just here for the hacker news/discussion) stick around, it's because it has some of the most interesting and civil discussion of any online community, and if you know about the YC bias then it's not a big deal to filter it out in your mind when browsing/reading the site.
- cglee 17y ago
  Maybe "unethical" is inaccurate, but I did mean to make a strong point. How about "annoying and unnecessary"? One reason why I enjoy HN is because, as you said, the intelligent and civil discussion. Despite it being sponsored by YC, I really appreciate the distinct lack of advertisements or blatant links to YC funded apps. It truly feels like an inclusive environment for all hackers, not just YC affiliated ones. Your comments are judged by their content, not (usually) by whether the author is part of the YC clique. Yes, I understand YC doesn't owe anyone anything, and if they wanted to, they have the right to turn HN into a billboard for YC companies. But that's not why I come here. That's why I think HN should nip these trends in the bud, so it stays as inclusive and impartial as possible.
Zak 17y ago
I've found clicking a PDF link on anything but Mac OS to be rather unpleasant. Many people (me included) consider the scribd link a more pleasant experience.
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Try foxit reader over the adobe junk :-) I switched a while ago and it's such an improved experience.
  - Zak 17y ago
    That doesn't run well on my platform of choice. Evince does though, and is also fast and lightweight. Still, I find PDF links a bit annoying, and am glad to have the scribd option.
    - dan_the_welder 17y ago
      I just put Evince on all my Windows machines and I am very happy about it. I was able to remove all the Adobe Air bonus arterial sclerosis. I tried Foxit and was not very impressed. I thought it was interesting that the Evince windows port was made since the last time I looked for an Acrobat replacement about a year ago.
- techiferous 17y ago
  Contrast this with my experience: whenever I happen upon an article on Scribd I immediately skip over it. I really don't like the user interface. (I'm on a Mac, by the way.)
Tichy 17y ago
As long as they don't change the link to the original PDF, it seems fair to me (if you accept scribd as fair in principle - they simply gobble up all PDFs they can get, I suppose). Meaning I think it is just a helper to include a viewer in a link to a PDF.

by cglee 17y ago

DTrejo 17y ago

PG wants scribd to do well, and so HN auto-adds Scribd links (I believe this is how it works).

sgk284 17y ago
Yea, it's no different than the Green Stats thing at the bottom of the page. He's just helping people out by using their stuff. Can't blame him for that.
- mos1 17y ago
  It's very different than the Green Stats. One is simply using a service, the other involves rehosting content without the request or permission of the author or content owner.
  - natrius 17y ago
    If the author doesn't want their content mirrored, they're free to throw up a robots.txt file, assuming Scribd respects that. The internet requires middlemen to make multiple copies of content for each request to successfully complete, so I'd call an HTTP 200 status code implied consent.
    - falien 17y ago
      Every request from a different place ultimately is fulfilled by the original host barring some extreme caching (which you can also use http headers to instruct against). This is completely different than the case of it being taken from the original host and put up on scribd, which could easily be a copyright violation. An HTTP 200 response is implied consent for an end-user (or even a robot) to view it, not to redistribute it. AFAIK scribd does not crawl for content (with them then hosting that would be blatantly illegal in the US) so robots.txt is not really applicable.
      - Zak 17y ago
        AFAIK scribd does not crawl for content (with them then hosting that would be blatantly illegal in the US) As far as I know, they don't do that, but if they did, how would it be different from Google cache?
        mos1 17y ago
        Google cache doesn't beat your main site in the rankings, and it clearly cites you as the original source of the data. That said, it's irrelevant because they don't crawl for content. The HN admins are way out of line with their practices on this one. They're making illegal copies to help their friends at Scribd, and doing so without the requisite consent.
        natrius 17y ago
        Search rankings have nothing to do with copyright law, which seems to be the basis of your argument. You have yet to give a decent argument that materially distinguishes Scribd from Google's cache, caching proxies, or even the basic routing required for any request on the internet, which copies content by definition. See also: http://docs.google.com/viewer http://docs.google.com/viewer
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        deleted 17y ago
        [deleted]
        mos1 17y ago
        I was just responding to Zak's comment about differences, giving a few. It wasn't meant as a complete argument of anything, or any sort. That said, two points: 1) doing so is not just immoral, it's against Scribd's TOS. 2) your claim that re-hosting content without permission is indistinguishable from transport makes clear that your beliefs are so different than mine that I cannot possibly find a way to communicate with you.

aminuit 17y ago

Initially (or at least a couple of years ago) if you submitted a PDF, the link would only be available through Scribd. It was a topic of much discussion. See here for example: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=195431 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=195431

sounddust 17y ago

It's certainly there to promote Scribd. I don't believe that HN has ever claimed to be an independent, impartial site. It's on a subdomain of ycombinator.com, it is heavily frequented by people who are either involved in YC, or people who want to be. Any story that is linked to a YC company is going to get a disproportionate amount of attention here, and I doubt that YC will hesitate to integrate links/widgets from YC companies as they've done with Scribd, CO2stats, and others. I'm pretty sure that one of the purposes of the site is to attract people to YC. If you want to know why people like myself (who are just here for the hacker news/discussion) stick around, it's because it has some of the most interesting and civil discussion of any online community, and if you know about the YC bias then it's not a big deal to filter it out in your mind when browsing/reading the site.

cglee 17y ago
Maybe "unethical" is inaccurate, but I did mean to make a strong point. How about "annoying and unnecessary"? One reason why I enjoy HN is because, as you said, the intelligent and civil discussion. Despite it being sponsored by YC, I really appreciate the distinct lack of advertisements or blatant links to YC funded apps. It truly feels like an inclusive environment for all hackers, not just YC affiliated ones. Your comments are judged by their content, not (usually) by whether the author is part of the YC clique. Yes, I understand YC doesn't owe anyone anything, and if they wanted to, they have the right to turn HN into a billboard for YC companies. But that's not why I come here. That's why I think HN should nip these trends in the bud, so it stays as inclusive and impartial as possible.

Zak 17y ago

I've found clicking a PDF link on anything but Mac OS to be rather unpleasant. Many people (me included) consider the scribd link a more pleasant experience.

ErrantX 17y ago
Try foxit reader over the adobe junk :-) I switched a while ago and it's such an improved experience.
- Zak 17y ago
  That doesn't run well on my platform of choice. Evince does though, and is also fast and lightweight. Still, I find PDF links a bit annoying, and am glad to have the scribd option.
  - dan_the_welder 17y ago
    I just put Evince on all my Windows machines and I am very happy about it. I was able to remove all the Adobe Air bonus arterial sclerosis. I tried Foxit and was not very impressed. I thought it was interesting that the Evince windows port was made since the last time I looked for an Acrobat replacement about a year ago.
techiferous 17y ago
Contrast this with my experience: whenever I happen upon an article on Scribd I immediately skip over it. I really don't like the user interface. (I'm on a Mac, by the way.)

Tichy 17y ago

As long as they don't change the link to the original PDF, it seems fair to me (if you accept scribd as fair in principle - they simply gobble up all PDFs they can get, I suppose). Meaning I think it is just a helper to include a viewer in a link to a PDF.