6 ms·

Scribd sued over copyright

34 points by talkingtiki 17y ago

ErrantX 17y ago
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 17y ago
  That's just asking for trouble. Just like Google's cache is?
  - newsdog 17y ago
    Ah but Goggle is a big boy with lots of money. It's much easier to pick on a smaller opponent.
    - davidw 17y ago
      On the other hand, you can get a lot of money by shaking down big companies. It depends on what your goals are: winning, or getting money from your win.
    - DaniFong 17y ago
      The strategy may be in fact to take down a smaller case and use it as a precedent to go after larger companies.
  - slig 17y ago
    Google cache is a plus. Also, scribd show ads right next to every content that they don't own.
    - jrockway 17y ago
      So do ad-supported web browsers.
      - slig 17y ago
        People still use ad-supported browsers?
        unalone 17y ago
        I do, because I like offering web sites I enjoy a chance to make money off me, and because I actually feel slightly empty when I go to a site designed around a Deck ad and don't see it. Tasteful ads make a web site look better.
        tedunangst 17y ago
        Web sites are not the same as browsers.
        unalone 17y ago
        Whoops! My bad.
      - seabee 17y ago
        So does your TV, if you have it switched on next to your laptop. 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.
        jrockway 17y ago
        This isn't true of Scribd. Why not? It's a PDF reader that you pay to use by looking at ads.
talkingtiki 17y ago
Think what you want about Scribd, the case is really loopy and weird.
RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=834352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=834352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832142 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 17y ago
  >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.
  - drusenko 17y ago
    even if they manually approved all uploaded documents (clearly, a financially impossible proposition), they would still undoubtedly miss some works where copyright information wasn't easily publicly accessible, and be liable for "infringement" for those. 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.
alex_c 17y ago
Class action lawsuit immediately makes me think of sharks smelling blood in the water.
dreyfiz 17y ago
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 17y ago
  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.
ghost11 17y ago
"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!"
aston 17y ago
Kiwi Camara has a bit of a controversial past himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_at_Harvard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_...
mattwdelong 17y ago
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.)

34 points by talkingtiki 17y ago

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 17y ago
That's just asking for trouble. Just like Google's cache is?
- newsdog 17y ago
  Ah but Goggle is a big boy with lots of money. It's much easier to pick on a smaller opponent.
  - davidw 17y ago
    On the other hand, you can get a lot of money by shaking down big companies. It depends on what your goals are: winning, or getting money from your win.
  - DaniFong 17y ago
    The strategy may be in fact to take down a smaller case and use it as a precedent to go after larger companies.
- slig 17y ago
  Google cache is a plus. Also, scribd show ads right next to every content that they don't own.
  - jrockway 17y ago
    So do ad-supported web browsers.
    - slig 17y ago
      People still use ad-supported browsers?
      - unalone 17y ago
        I do, because I like offering web sites I enjoy a chance to make money off me, and because I actually feel slightly empty when I go to a site designed around a Deck ad and don't see it. Tasteful ads make a web site look better.
        tedunangst 17y ago
        Web sites are not the same as browsers.
        unalone 17y ago
        Whoops! My bad.
    - seabee 17y ago
      So does your TV, if you have it switched on next to your laptop. 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.
      - jrockway 17y ago
        This isn't true of Scribd. Why not? It's a PDF reader that you pay to use by looking at ads.

talkingtiki 17y ago

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

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

See also: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=834352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=834352 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=832142 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 17y ago
>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.
- drusenko 17y ago
  even if they manually approved all uploaded documents (clearly, a financially impossible proposition), they would still undoubtedly miss some works where copyright information wasn't easily publicly accessible, and be liable for "infringement" for those. 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.

alex_c 17y ago

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

dreyfiz 17y ago

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 17y ago
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.

ghost11 17y ago

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

aston 17y ago

Kiwi Camara has a bit of a controversial past himself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_at_Harvard http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiwi_Camara#Racial_controversy_...

mattwdelong 17y ago

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.)