Scribd gets DMCA takedown notice

[Ervserver]

Nobody messes with J.K.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

So really, if /anyone/ sends them a notice that they're hosting Harry Potter, they should take it down straight away.

Dear Moderators, pdurrant's post is an exact copy of a comment I read in a published book, and is an infringement of it's copyright. Please delete their comment from this thread.

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. Accepting notices from "anyone" would quickly escalate out of hand. You could start getting someone else's content removed just because you didn't like them, etc.

There's a reason that the DMCA requires it to come from the copyright holder, and even that is being abused.

[pdurrant]

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.)

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.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by Ervserver

Nobody messes with J.K.

Heh, except, if you really want to read Harry Potter on your ereader, the ONLY way to do it, is by finding a "pirated" copy.

So, who exactly wins here?

P.S. For someone so concerned with copyright, Rowling really should not have "pirated" wholesale elements from Mr. Tolkien:

...You say Dementors, I say Nazgûl. You say Lord Voldemort, I say Dark Lord of Mordor....

Perhaps it's time for a DMCA takedown notice, to excise these from the Potter books?

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Heh, except, if you really want to read Harry Potter on your ereader, the ONLY way to do it, is by finding a "pirated" copy.

Or by creating one yourself (if scanning and/or OCRing for personal use is illegal).

[pdurrant]

Hmm.. "Harry Potter and the Unauthorised Ebook" :-)

Originally Posted by Jellby

Or by creating one yourself (if scanning and/or OCRing for personal use is illegal).

[lilac_jive]

Well on the flip side, World Without End is available as an ebook, and is fairly cheap.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

But there is a clause in the statute that if they become aware of possibly infringing content, they do have to make a judgement.

The clause does not require that they make a judgement on possibly infringing content. It says that if they become aware of infringement, they need to take action. An allegation from third parties does not imply that there is infringement. In order to become aware that infringement has actually occurred, they would either have to blindly take the third parties word for it, or else do enough research themselves to determine the validity.

At 50,000 documents a day, the sheer volume makes it unreasonable to expect them to police it all. Not only every submission, but following up on every unofficial/alleged notice would likely require resources that they do not have. The vast numbers just make it impractical. It's pretty standard practice for sites like this to say they will only take material down based on a DMCA notice from the copyright holder. I don't see anything wrong with that, this is exactly why the DMCA takedown notice was created.

As you said, their automated database is probably about as good as they can do, and is already more than the DMCA calls for.

[Shaggy]

Originally Posted by Sonist

Heh, except, if you really want to read Harry Potter on your ereader, the ONLY way to do it, is by finding a "pirated" copy.

So, who exactly wins here?

I agree. However, as the copyright holder, it's entirely within her right to make completely stupid decisions about the availability of her work.

P.S. For someone so concerned with copyright, Rowling really should not have "pirated" wholesale elements from Mr. Tolkien:

...You say Dementors, I say Nazgûl. You say Lord Voldemort, I say Dark Lord of Mordor....

That's the funny part about all of this. Very little "art" is truly original. Almost every artist (author, musician, painter, etc) borrows ideas and inspiration from previous works. The whole concept of "this work is mine and nobody else is allowed to use/sell it without my permission" is pretty hypocritical when you think about it. The stronger they try to make IP laws, the more they'll wind up hurting the development of the arts. Then again, these days nobody cares about "promoting the progress of science and the useful arts", it's all about profit/control.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by lilac_jive

Well on the flip side, World Without End is available as an ebook, and is fairly cheap.

It's actually the "same" side

If World Without End is priced right, most of those interested in it, will pay for it. Which is what matters to the author and the publishers.

There will always be some, who for whatever reason (sport, or even genuine lack of $$), will "pirate." But they are irrelevant in the big picture.

When I was a kid, I remember the double cassette decks "stereos," which were in fact set up to make it as easy as possible to copy records or tapes. You could play an album, and tape it at the same time - it took less time, than it would take for someone with a slow connection, to download the same album today. Nevertheless, many people had commercial, bought tapes in their cars, of the same albums they had in vinyl form at their homes. It was the heyday of cassette sales, and they were selling for $4-$6

The point I am trying to make is, when the price is right for the market, most of those who are interested will pay (I am not talking about those who are "pirate pack rats" and "collect" stuff for the sake of it - stuff they would never actually buy, because they are not interested enough in it.) But even they become paying consumers at times, when they find something worth it to them.

[Robotech_Master]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Hmm.. "Harry Potter and the Unauthorised Ebook" :-)

Do you mean "Harry Potter and the Illicit Ebook"?