It's quite right that only a full and correct DMCA take-down notice should /require/ them to remove content.
But there is a clause in the statute that if they become aware of possibly infringing content, they do have to make a judgement.
Having read up a little at Scribd.com, they do say that they have a database of material that has been taken down, which is compared with new uploads to prevent the same stuff being uploaded again. Which is pretty good. It should mean that copyright holders don't have to keep a constant watch for the same stuff re-appearing there all the time. (Well, if it works.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
OK, not really, but I think you can see how easily such a system would be abused. The only person who can issue a legally binding takedown notice is the copyright holder, specifically because they have to state "under penalty of perjury" that they are the copyright holder.
|