Scribd Comes Out Against SOPA By Making Documents Disappear
from the good-for-them dept
One of the more interesting things about what's happening as the tech and startup world recognizes just how ridiculous SOPA and PROTECT IP are, is that many tech companies are coming up with their own unique and interesting ways to make their users aware of it. Tumblr blacked out its dashboard. Reddit set up a SOPA subreddit and has publicly advocated against the bill. Etsy alerted all of its users to the threat of SOPA on Etsy (multiple times). The latest interesting one, as noted by Alex Howard, is that Scribd has officially come out against the bill and is doing so by making text from various documents (including the analysis from famed Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe about how SOPA & PIPA violate the First Amendment) disappear before your eyes, before asking you to call Congress.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: pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: scribd
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Just a guess ... go SOPA!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What does current have to do with anything?!?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111212/16232517056/wikipedia-considers-blackout-to-p rotest-sopa.shtml
I was hoping Wikipedia would follow through on their blackout but maybe I missed it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another company that can't be bothered to know their clients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Yes, we get it. Anyone who disagrees with you has to be either brainwashed or misled. only you have the truth, even though you won't explain what's wrong. We get it.
At a rough guess, they're coming out because they've already been the target of questionable lawsuits and other attempts to take them down despite doing nothing wrong.
Example: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/09/scribd-defense/
"Another company that can't be bothered to know their clients."
Oh, they know their clients alright. They also know the dangers that unfounded attacks would cause them under SOPA, hence the problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Sorry Paul, but your whining doesn't fly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You saw the part about intent right?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[citation needed]
The penalties for filing a bogus takedown are small, I believe they only cover lawyer fees and that's it (which can't make a company rich since they had to pay out those lawyer fees, though it can make the lawyers rich so either way the lawyers win), and those penalties pale in comparison to infringement. SOPA supporters have been fighting against increasing the penalties for filing a bogus takedown request. Not to mention, intent is difficult to prove and is required to get only a somewhat better reward.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
You're totally right. Under SOPA these sites would be able to publish blacked out dashboards, or only a few spread out words from a doc, because they'd be completely out of business. Thanks for pointing this out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'd feel so very bad for the kitten.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
No because google actually uses it's income to innovate... not litigate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: re
[ link to this | view in chronology ]