Going Too Far In Kowtowing To Copyright Holders
from the public-domain-and-fair-use-exist... dept
In the past, we've used the website Scribd to upload documents that we want to show readers here -- usually things like court filings. It's a decent solution, and often better than providing a link to a pdf which annoys some people (myself included). Recently, the company has come under some misguided fire by copyright holders, falsely accusing the company of somehow making it easy to infringe on copyrights. The company has pointed out that beyond its existing DMCA safe harbors, the company goes above and beyond in helping copyright holders stop unauthorized use. In fact, we've defended the company against unfair attacks. However, it looks like the company has ramped up its attempts to appease copyright holders, and in some cases may be going too far. We already pointed out how it took down a public domain book (though it was quick to fix that mistake).The latest, though, is that I just went to upload another document (a public domain court ruling), and as I did, I saw that Scribd now requires me to check off a box saying: "I certify that I own the copyright to these documents." That was troubling to me, because I do not own the copyright on this particular document... no one does. As I moved to upload the document at a competing site (DocStoc), I Twittered the dilemma, noting that I wasn't sure what to do. To Scribd's credit, it took a company representative all of three minutes to respond that public domain documents were okay, and that they would update the language of the uploader to make this clear. A quick response, which actually makes me feel good about Scribd, but... at the same time highlights the problem.
After getting so much pressure from copyright holders, Scribd feels the need to be extra proactive in "protecting" copyright, even to the point where its default decisions go too far. While it will now clarify that public domain documents are okay... what about cases where the document would be fair use? Someone should still be able to upload the document without declaring that they own the document or that it's in the public domain if it's a fair use case. This certainly isn't putting any of the blame on Scribd, who seems to be bending over backwards to satisfy everyone. But that's a part of the problem. The copyright holders are clearly pushing well beyond what copyright allows them to do, and it's putting pressure on Scribd to respond -- with the early response going so far as to wipe out certain user rights. The copyright supporters love this, because they don't care much about trampling user rights, but it shows just how screwed up things are that a company like Scribd even needs to be put in this position.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: copyright, fair use, kowtowing, public domain
Companies: scribd
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Force...
Therefore, the threat of 'legal force'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's next?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In other words, you can use fair use to fight a DMCA takedown request, but that will never prevent an asshole from filing it or from dragging you through the legal hassle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
riiiight. fair use is always a consideration, which is why the EFF and others have to get involved on behalf of so many.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fair Use?
If you're uploading a document you wrote that fairly quotes some copyright material, that wouldn't be a problem since you would have copyright in that document.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fair Use?
Let's say I'm writing a critique of a single part of a book and upload one page. Since the nature of the use is commentary, the purpose isn't commercial and only a small segment is used, that would almost certainly all under fair use.
Or, if you want to pull an example out of the news itself... what if I'm uploading a small image of concert poster for the purpose commentary. There was the recent court case that found that to be fair use as well.
I could think of plenty of other examples as well...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair Use?
What I understand you to be saying is that you are writing a commentary on a book or concert poster and that you want to upload not your commentary, which includes fair use quotes or an segment of an image, but just the quoted, copyrighted material so you can refer to it in your commentary.
If that is correct, I think you'd be stretching a claim of fair use, since you will have uncoupled the uploaded material from your commentary and severed the fair use connection to your commentary from the upload as viewed on a service like Scribd.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?
Example: at an event I play clips of a movie to my audience as part of commentary and critque on the movie itself. Fair use. However, because of the way the Internet works, there is no way to place those same clips with a transcript of my commentary because everything on the Internet is piecemeal.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fair Use?
Not at all. There are probably thousands of instances of fair use all over the Internet, every day. Most blog posts fall into this category, where quotes and clips are used for commentary widely.
However, because of the way the Internet works, there is no way to place those same clips with a transcript of my commentary because everything on the Internet is piecemeal.
Not everything on the Internet is piecemeal by a long shot. There are any number of ways you could embed those clips within the context of your presentation. It may take some slight effort and forethought to do so, but, again, thousands of people seem to be able to do this everyday on the Internet without a problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fair Use?
I support making a copy of something or for backup or time-shifting but the technology is easy to pervert and many use your argument to justify theft.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Where would fair use apply?
The fact that Scribd responded to concerns about public domain within three minutes shows that they are closely monitoring this to see how it affects users and adjusting their system to address issues. How are they doing the wrong thing here? How is asking a user to declare that they have the right to upload what they're uploading going "too far"? You may not like current copyright law, and I tend to agree with a lot of that. However, it is still currently the law.
"The copyright holders are clearly pushing well beyond what copyright allows them to do..."
What? Asking users not to upload unauthorized copies of their work, and seeking the cooperation of the platform provider to assist with curbing such uploading? No, as a service provider, Scribd does not have to cooperate, but they have the right to, and the copyright holders have the right to request cooperation even where it is not legally required.
Besides, this action is really just a token action, anyway. That checkbox doesn't stop anyone from uploading unauthorized copies any more than the "I'm Over 18" button stops minors from entering adult sites.
I think you have REALLY blown this one out of proportion and provided that much more fodder for the Weird Harolds out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where would fair use apply?
You really don't know what you're talking about, as usual.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where would fair use apply?
That said, making an ad hominem attack, as you did, without any facts or details just makes you look like an middle-school ass. And to do it anonymously is just, well, cowardly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Where would fair use apply?
People can only go by what you write. We can rad your mind and know that you meant something different. If you meant something different, you should have written something different. As it is, you're just busted (again).
That said, making an ad hominem attack, as you did, without any facts or details just makes you look like an middle-school ass. And to do it anonymously is just, well, cowardly.
Actually, it's based on your own reputation and the evidence is all in the Techdirt archives. But talk about ad hominem attacks, it looks like you're the first one engaging in name calling. And criticizing someone for posting anonymously? That's funny, coming from someone who's posting anonymously. I know, why don't you post your identity (full name, address, employer, SSN, etc.)?
(sound of crickets)
Yeah, that's what I thought. You really take the cake. What a hypocrite.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Where would fair use apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Where would fair use apply?
That is not true under any definition of the law. Fair use is an exception. It does not mean you own the copyright on the document.
if yours is sufficiently transformative or provides commentary, the resulting document is yours
But what if the document is not transformative, but the use of it is fair use? That's not covered by the check box.
How is asking a user to declare that they have the right to upload what they're uploading going "too far"
They did not ask "do you have the right to upload this document." They asked: "I certify that I own the copyright to these documents." There's a big and important difference.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Where would fair use apply?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Satisfaction
Really? So, you were satisfied that you couldn't post a public domain document?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Satisfaction
They should word it more like "I certify that I am being a good boy/girl."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
scribd response
I know you twittered about it and scribd answered in a few minutes. Are they following YOU on twitter or could I twitter about scribd and expect some response? I guess I don't "get" twitter - but I don't see how they knew about your tweet in order to respond nor do I understand how they responded. Please explain.
Thanks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: scribd response
They were not following me at the time (they are now). I'm guessing they were running a constant search. I do the same thing. I use software called Tweetdeck, and within seconds of anyone mentioning Techdirt on Twitter, I get a notice about it. My guess is they do something similar, and any time anyone mentions Scribd, it pops up in a window.
Then, once they saw that I had mentioned Scribd, they just replied to my post via Twitter.
So, yes, if you Twittered about Scribd, you could expect the same response.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Once again...
COPYRIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!
say it with me, say it proud.
COPYRIGHT IS NOT ABSOLUTE!!!
You have a LIMITED rights for a LIMITED TIME (though thats getting absurd now) to exploit your work. People are using the copyright sledgehammer WAY too much these days, and it has the effect of everyone being afraid of doing ANYTHING for fear of being sued. And you are getting absurd ideas about the extent of copyright coverage, like people thinking you cant take a picture of them because their person is "copyright." Sorry, wrong, you cant copyright a human being. You can copyright a specific image taken of a human being, but you cant copyright the PERSON such that it prevents pictures being taken. Thats not copyright, thats privacy and is covered under different laws (harassment, civil rights, etc)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Just one more click
What does anybody think they're proving by forcing users to check some box that doesn't mean anything?
When I try to book travel on my employer's officially sanctioned web site, I have to enter my "international travel authorization" number, even if I don't have one because I'm not traveling internationally. Somebody somewhere decided that those international travelers weren't properly entering their international travel codes, so they would make EVERYBODY enter one. It's just one more mouse click. Multiplied by thousands of users every day.
When I fill out my expense report I have to check the box where I swear I'm not defrauding anyone, nor have I used the funds to commit any international crimes to bribe foreign officials even though it might be legal in their country. I can't get reimbursed for my legitimate expenses unless I swear that I didn't commit a crime with the money. It's just one more mouse click. Who the hell would admit that they did commit an international crime? (If you knew who I work for and what international crimes they have committed you'd really find that funny.)
When I turn on my TomTom I have to swear that I'll drive safely. Some damn lawyer's idea that they'll be able to avoid one of those class action lawsuits brought on by the user's stupidity. They won't, of course, but it's just one more click. My clicker's clicked out. I'll sure never buy another TomTom, but that's just one of the reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scribd check box
There are several other instances where I can legitimately upload a digital object for which I do not hold the copyright. For example, many of the Creative Commons licenses allow users to do so. Thus, as noted by several people, the Scribd check box is too rigid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]