Apple May Get To Remove Obvious Features From Android

Scribd Comes Out Against SOPA By Making Documents Disappear

from the good-for-them dept

Wed, Dec 21st 2011 7:34pm — Mike Masnick

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.

Filed Under: pipa, protect ip, sopa
Companies: scribd

35 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 7:51pm

What happened to Wikipedia and their threats of closing it down?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:16pm

It's just too bad that they are making documents that would always be legal and without issue disappear. They aren't giving anyone a realistic impression of what is going on.

Another company that can't be bothered to know their clients.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:19pm

As long as they're lying about what the bill does, maybe they could say it kills puppies and kittens too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Drak, 21 Dec 2011 @ 8:38pm

Re:
If you read it closely enough it could be used to kill puppies and kittens. What if the kitten was to file a bogus copyright claim and then the massive backlash against such tactics, as boldly and clearly stated in the bill, caused the kittne to commit suicide due to a large settlement being levied against him?

I'd feel so very bad for the kitten.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DOlz (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 9:53pm

Re:
Now you're just phoning your trolling in. Maybe you need a vacation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:00pm

Re:
It's just too bad that you make things up and you're wrong. You can't be bothered to check the facts. Another shill that prefers money over truth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:00pm

Re:
SOPA is targeted at full websites, not individual documents on websites (which is covered by the DMCA). If the site goes down, all documents, legal or otherwise, go down with it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:02pm

Re:
They know exactly what it does, let anyone who wants to take down anything they want to as long as they claim there is a copyright violation (which is not checked by the course)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:03pm

Re:
Perhaps, the threat of closing down credit card donations during their next donation drive.

Just a guess ... go SOPA!!!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hephaestus (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:06pm

Re: Re:
Oh and Wikipedia is a bunch of pirates and deserves to be shut down. They have pics from current TV shows!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:12pm

Re:
As long as you're lying about the bill then maybe you can say that it will resurrect the dead too.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:16pm

Re:
"They aren't giving anyone a realistic impression of what is going on."

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 thread ]
Michael Lockyear, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:20pm

Did some idiot / politician / uniformed thug confuse Wikipedia for Wikileaks? Or is it because Wikipedia links to copyrighted content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:24pm

Re:
Referring to the following

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 thread ]
ervserver (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 10:57pm

re
is Google doing anything to fight this? seems like little to nothing. They have tons of money...can't they pay higher bribes to the congress members than the RIAA is?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 21 Dec 2011 @ 11:37pm

Re: Re:
A Congressional order prevented Wikipedia from shutting down after many members expressed their concern that if this information were suddenly unavailable, they "would have no way of knowing who they were addressing during legislative proceedings, what exactly a 'legislative proceeding' entails, what state exactly they're supposedly representing or who that guy was that looked so familiar in 'Knockaround Guys' (Seth Green)."
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 12:02am

Re:
"They aren't giving anyone a realistic impression of what is going on."

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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:53am

Re:
Well, the bill could very well kill youtube, which is, as we all know, mainly composed of videos of cats doing "cute" things.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 2:53am

Re: Re:
There are also videos of dogs skating. So, yeah, it kills puppies and kittens.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ComputerAddict (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 4:38am

Re: re
"can't they pay higher bribes to the congress members than the RIAA is?!?"

No because google actually uses it's income to innovate... not litigate.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
martyburns (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:20am

Re: Re: Re:
They have pics from current TV shows!

What does current have to do with anything?!?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:23am

Re: Re:
This is a very good point. SOPA will kill the internet thereby killing all the LOL cats! Think of the poor cats!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Vincent Clement (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:26am

Re:
And how many times has the DMCA been used to silence critics? I'm fairly certain that no where in bill that created the DMCA did it say one could use the DMCA to silence those that criticize your products, services or speech? But hey, keep your head in the sand.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Machin Shin, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:26am

Re: re
Sadly I think Google is not brave enough to really do as much as they should. Could you imagine if everyone who was against this just shut down their webpages even for just a few hours? suddenly no Wikipedia, no Google, and many more suddenly not there. That would wake up the world to this, but these companies fear the loss of that money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 5:36am

Re: Re:
Yes, and their lawyers have probably also explained to them how they can all end up being very, very rich if an unfounded attack comes in.

Sorry Paul, but your whining doesn't fly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
MAJikMARCer (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 6:07am

Re: Re: re
It would be nice if they did SOMETHING though. SO many people use Google that otherwise are unaware of SOPA or PIPA and they could educated the masses very quickly.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Trails (profile), 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:06am

Re: Re: Re:
If by very rich, you mean "out of business" then yes.

You saw the part about intent right?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:10am

Re: Re:
You are on to something there, head in a very dark place, though I do not think it is sand he is smelling. The question is who's cheeks he is kissing, his own, or his bosses?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:23am

Re: Re:
The bill couldn't kill YouTube, liar.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re:
"Yes, and their lawyers have probably also explained to them how they can all end up being very, very rich if an unfounded attack comes in."

[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 thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:31am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
(in comparison to infringement penalties).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 9:32am

Re: Re: Re:
Yes it could, liar!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DorkBanana, 22 Dec 2011 @ 1:11pm

Re:
Wales first ran a straw poll to see if it was a popular idea. I read on another site that around 85+% of Wiki users/writers/contributors supported it, now they're just trying to figure out a way to implement this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 22 Dec 2011 @ 7:49pm

Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're not over 95+ years old and are hence still protected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
PaulT (profile), 23 Dec 2011 @ 12:14am

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
...unless the pictures are utilised in a way covered by fair use, CC or some other exception/alternative to standard copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]