Scott vs. Scribd, Inc(docs.justia.com)
docs.justia.com
Scott vs. Scribd, Inc
http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/txsdce/4:2009cv03039/699403/1/
8 comments
> once the publisher complained and it's now gone.
There's something to be said for not having to chase after people to keep them from ripping you off, though.
> I'm very happy that there are ways to limit it, but the genie is out of the bottle for digital content and the answer is not suing Scribd.
I agree with that. Which makes it something of a vexing question.
There's something to be said for not having to chase after people to keep them from ripping you off, though.
> I'm very happy that there are ways to limit it, but the genie is out of the bottle for digital content and the answer is not suing Scribd.
I agree with that. Which makes it something of a vexing question.
There's something to be said for not having to chase after people to keep them from ripping you off, though.
Agreed. But The Geek Atlas was ripped off within hours of it becoming available as a PDF and it appeared in a variety of seedy places on the net which would have been near impossible to actually shutdown.
The only real solution is to target the major providers because they'll be the major conduit for bad copies. That's why it was important to go after Scribd quickly.
What can be done is have publishers work with people like Scribd to preemptively upload ways of identifying copyrighted works so that individual authors don't have to police the Internet.
I agree with that. Which makes it something of a vexing question.
I'm not sure it's even a question. People are going to rip off my book and I cannot prevent all infringement. I have to do two things:
1. Concentrate on other streams of revenue around the book (this is vital anyway since I'm not going to make a fortune with it even if there was no infringement at all).
2. Make sure that major infringements are dealt with quickly.
Of course, I hope you'll go out and buy it, or the e-version, or read it on Safari, but there will be some people who decide to download it from some bad site. Now, I wonder what percentage of those people actually read it.
Agreed. But The Geek Atlas was ripped off within hours of it becoming available as a PDF and it appeared in a variety of seedy places on the net which would have been near impossible to actually shutdown.
The only real solution is to target the major providers because they'll be the major conduit for bad copies. That's why it was important to go after Scribd quickly.
What can be done is have publishers work with people like Scribd to preemptively upload ways of identifying copyrighted works so that individual authors don't have to police the Internet.
I agree with that. Which makes it something of a vexing question.
I'm not sure it's even a question. People are going to rip off my book and I cannot prevent all infringement. I have to do two things:
1. Concentrate on other streams of revenue around the book (this is vital anyway since I'm not going to make a fortune with it even if there was no infringement at all).
2. Make sure that major infringements are dealt with quickly.
Of course, I hope you'll go out and buy it, or the e-version, or read it on Safari, but there will be some people who decide to download it from some bad site. Now, I wonder what percentage of those people actually read it.
The 'vexing question' is how to appropriately balance things so that people still have an incentive to create content.
BTW, I'd be happier to buy a copy myself if there were more sites in Italy. Between da Vinci, Galileo and so on and so forth (and don't forget the Greeks in Sicily or the Romans) there are quite a few interesting places to visit!
BTW, I'd be happier to buy a copy myself if there were more sites in Italy. Between da Vinci, Galileo and so on and so forth (and don't forget the Greeks in Sicily or the Romans) there are quite a few interesting places to visit!
Well, some people seem to think that content isn't worth anything and people won't pay for it:
http://paulgraham.com/publishing.html
http://paulgraham.com/publishing.html
> It annoys me greatly when I see people can read my book for free somewhere because I don't get paid.
Do you object to public libraries?
Do you object to public libraries?
No, and especially not in Europe where I get paid when people take my book out of the library :-)
http://www.plr.uk.com/
But even without that I don't have an objection to libraries because they do not copy my book, they simply lend it.
http://www.plr.uk.com/
But even without that I don't have an objection to libraries because they do not copy my book, they simply lend it.
Interesting. Why is the copy vs lend distinction important to you? Surely in both cases someone is reading your book for free?
Cory Doctorow wants to have a word with you. :)
What does "the genie is out of the bottle" mean? Does it mean: it is now possible to do X.
If that is the case, then the "genie" has been out of the bottle to do a variety of criminal activities for the duration of this last recorded leg of human civilization.
Isn't the whole point of having an enforced civil order to whack the hand that reaches for the bottle?
The plaintiff's points were quite clear and reasonable.
"In fact, I'd be willing to sign a copyright assignment form allowing them to hold the text for this specific purpose."
Sounds like 'the olive oil' business model.
http://www.superchefblog.com/images/marlonbrando_godfather.p...
If that is the case, then the "genie" has been out of the bottle to do a variety of criminal activities for the duration of this last recorded leg of human civilization.
Isn't the whole point of having an enforced civil order to whack the hand that reaches for the bottle?
The plaintiff's points were quite clear and reasonable.
"In fact, I'd be willing to sign a copyright assignment form allowing them to hold the text for this specific purpose."
Sounds like 'the olive oil' business model.
http://www.superchefblog.com/images/marlonbrando_godfather.p...
What does "the genie is out of the bottle" mean?
What I meant was that since digital content is trivially copyable and since DRM is circumventable we have to learn to live in a world where anything that can be digital is likely to be copied.
Sounds like 'the olive oil' business model.
I'll have to ask you to explain that since I have not seen The Godfather.
What I meant was that since digital content is trivially copyable and since DRM is circumventable we have to learn to live in a world where anything that can be digital is likely to be copied.
Sounds like 'the olive oil' business model.
I'll have to ask you to explain that since I have not seen The Godfather.
I understood that, but don't accept the premise of the "digital" changes the world (in this context). Can you imagine a business selling bootleg (hard) copies of text books opening shop in a university town? What's so hard about making paper copies? Sell it at a bit over copying cost and you'd still be underselling the legitimate publisher by a huge margin. Where would the students buy their books?
The fact that the content is in "digital" even makes checking for notices of copyrights that much more trivial. We're all geeks here, so lets be honest:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15490856/Java-Pocket-Guide-by-ORei...
"Copyright (c) 2008 Robert Liguori and Patricia Liguori. All rights reserved."
If you are taking a digital format and converting it to the scribd format, how trivial is it for you to write a function that greps for the "Copyright" and "all rights reserved" phrases in the text?
The Olive Oil business: (A protection racket. Organized crime. etc.)
I hope she gets her pound of flesh.
The fact that the content is in "digital" even makes checking for notices of copyrights that much more trivial. We're all geeks here, so lets be honest:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/15490856/Java-Pocket-Guide-by-ORei...
"Copyright (c) 2008 Robert Liguori and Patricia Liguori. All rights reserved."
If you are taking a digital format and converting it to the scribd format, how trivial is it for you to write a function that greps for the "Copyright" and "all rights reserved" phrases in the text?
The Olive Oil business: (A protection racket. Organized crime. etc.)
I hope she gets her pound of flesh.
Your Scribd example is a bad one because that's an example of O'Reilly putting a sample of that book on Scribd to tempt people to buy the real thing.
Basically, I think she's going to have a really hard time proving any harm. She says her book was downloaded 100 times. Now prove that that equals 100 lost sales, or X lost sales for any value of X.
My assumption is that if my book was downloaded from Scribd 100 times that I've lost way less than 100 sales (if any) which at royalty rates on a book means I might have lost a couple of dollars. For that reason I wouldn't sue Scribd.
Basically, I think she's going to have a really hard time proving any harm. She says her book was downloaded 100 times. Now prove that that equals 100 lost sales, or X lost sales for any value of X.
My assumption is that if my book was downloaded from Scribd 100 times that I've lost way less than 100 sales (if any) which at royalty rates on a book means I might have lost a couple of dollars. For that reason I wouldn't sue Scribd.
The most interesting conspiracy theory in this lawsuit is that Scribd might be doing the whole PDF-hosting business as a loss leader in order to enable an automatic infringement-detection business.
In other words, Scribd's document-hosting is sort of a honeypot, designed to attract both legit and infringing uploads, as well as complaints from publishers regarding infringing uploads. Collecting all of this, they have both a document hosting site and a database of stuff publishers have claimed as copyrighted.
You couldn't very well call up every publisher and say "hey, send me a PDF of everything you have a copyright on so I can start a business doing automatic copyright-checking." But if you have a popular document hosting site, you can rely on the publishers to incrementally develop that database for you. And your business goals line up very well with your DMCA legal requirements.
This would be a very clever hack. I doubt Scribd chose to pursue it intentionally, but either way, an "Is this blob of text copyrighted by someone else?" API would be a very valuable service.
In other words, Scribd's document-hosting is sort of a honeypot, designed to attract both legit and infringing uploads, as well as complaints from publishers regarding infringing uploads. Collecting all of this, they have both a document hosting site and a database of stuff publishers have claimed as copyrighted.
You couldn't very well call up every publisher and say "hey, send me a PDF of everything you have a copyright on so I can start a business doing automatic copyright-checking." But if you have a popular document hosting site, you can rely on the publishers to incrementally develop that database for you. And your business goals line up very well with your DMCA legal requirements.
This would be a very clever hack. I doubt Scribd chose to pursue it intentionally, but either way, an "Is this blob of text copyrighted by someone else?" API would be a very valuable service.
Summary:
- Scribd is a publisher, not a service provider, and therefore should not be granted the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
- Scribd knows that they publish copyrighted material.
- Scribd profits from publishing the copyright material.
- When a content creator requests that content be removed, Scribd retains a copy of that material for use in later identifying copyrighted material, without the permission of the content creator.
- Additionally, Scribd allows authors to upload their works to the copyright protection system in order to be recognized when uploaded by a user, but Scribd requires the content creator waive their right to sue Scribd before they may do so.
- Case law originating on the west coast is popularly interpreted as granting companies like Scribd safe harbor provisions.
The book that resulted in the case, "Stocks and Bonds, Profits and Losses", is a children's book written in 1984 (published 1985) which is now out of print.
- Scribd is a publisher, not a service provider, and therefore should not be granted the DMCA's safe harbor provisions.
- Scribd knows that they publish copyrighted material.
- Scribd profits from publishing the copyright material.
- When a content creator requests that content be removed, Scribd retains a copy of that material for use in later identifying copyrighted material, without the permission of the content creator.
- Additionally, Scribd allows authors to upload their works to the copyright protection system in order to be recognized when uploaded by a user, but Scribd requires the content creator waive their right to sue Scribd before they may do so.
- Case law originating on the west coast is popularly interpreted as granting companies like Scribd safe harbor provisions.
The book that resulted in the case, "Stocks and Bonds, Profits and Losses", is a children's book written in 1984 (published 1985) which is now out of print.
A year or two ago I explained to my mother, a lawyer of 30 years, how web sites like YouTube work. I explained that some people figured out that a provision in the DMCA implied these practices were ok and case-law seems to uphold this. She was blown away. To be fair, my mom doesn't do email or surf the web, ever, but its amazing how many people don't understand this substantial change in intellectual property law.
Could you provide some more information on what changes you are referring to?
Are you saying that before the DMCA, Scribd's standard operating practice would have been more illegal or more legal?
Are you saying that before the DMCA, Scribd's standard operating practice would have been more illegal or more legal?
"The Digital Millennium Copyright Act has notable safe-harbor provisions which protect Internet service providers from the consequences of their users' actions." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_harbor
Every legal opinion I've ever read thinks scribd, youtube, etc can only exist due to this law.
Every legal opinion I've ever read thinks scribd, youtube, etc can only exist due to this law.
Direct link to the PDF: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/texas/t...
Hm, let's see - is reading through a 22 page pdf about a court case (presumably written in lawyer lingo) good use of hacker time?
Much more relevant than CIA manuals, 'the problem with black people', treasure islands or some of the other crap getting voted up.
'Lawyer Lingo?' It reads quite well and is a well organized document. The outcome also will set the precedent and give na idea on how the Courts are going to handle new technology.
I agree that the number of pages alone should not disqualify it. If somebody would post the "ultimate Erlang reference in 100 pages", it would probably be upvoted, too. But please at least give me a reason to start reading it. Should I really read through 22 pages to figure out if it is even relevant to me?
you obviously do not need to read all the 22 pages... it is well organized and you can navigate the document very clearly. I looked for about a minute and was able to figure everything I needed. It's actually quite interesting and informative...in the time it has taken you to write all of these replies you definitely could have gotten some idea what this 'lawyer lingo' really was.
Anyone got a Scribd mirror of the PDF?
Can't people use some better models for monetizing on their creations in place of old "Pay us or we won't show you!"? It's hurting all of us and we have technology now to deal with this some better way.
But this lawsuit seems bogus to me. When my book was up on Scribd they quickly removed it once the publisher complained and it's now gone.
It annoys me greatly when I see people can read my book for free somewhere because I don't get paid. But I ask myself exactly how many of those people would actually have bought the book or the PDF in the first place. I'm guessing that I really don't lose much money from this sort of infringement.
I'm very happy that there are ways to limit it, but the genie is out of the bottle for digital content and the answer is not suing Scribd.
In the lawsuit the plaintiff complains about this process and goes on to claim that Scribd keeping a copy of her book so that they can automatically detect future infringing uploads is itself copyright infringement.
I'm very happy that Scribd has a copy of my book somewhere in their system to automatically detect people uploading it when they shouldn't. The last thing I'd want is for them to remove it and then not know how to stop people uploading it again.
In fact, I'd be willing to sign a copyright assignment form allowing them to hold the text for this specific purpose.