5 ms·

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

by DTrejo 17y ago

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.

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

by DTrejo 17y ago

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

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.