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.
> 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.
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.
In the case of a person clicking the check box when uploading, that person is responsible. Scribd most certainly stores their IP address, which can be traced back to identify the infringer.
In the case of "auto-importing" feature, things are much less clear. In that case, I can see your point.
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.
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.
Comments
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.
> 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:
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.
In the case of a person clicking the check box when uploading, that person is responsible. Scribd most certainly stores their IP address, which can be traced back to identify the infringer.
In the case of "auto-importing" feature, things are much less clear. In that case, I can see your point.
I know I sort of disagreed with you before (way back when this first came up) but Im coming more and more to this way of thinking.
They're potentially screwing me as a user - if I innocently click on a scraping link and import a PDF with no understanding who is then responsible?
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.
Hmm. Here, extracted from the comment above, is the basis of my point of view
From those facts I concluded: 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:
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:
then your logic is faulty.