Jammie Thomas’s lawyers sue Scribd for copyright infringement
One of the most commonly misunderstood things about lawyers is that, as with forensic debaters, they may often choose to argue two opposite, competing sides of the same issue. This is hardly unusual for them—it’s their job to advocate for whatever side they choose, or even both sides if they think the particular cases have merit.
Our pop culture tends to latch onto this and portray any lawyer who does not have a Perry Mason- or Matlock-like dedication to proving clients innocent as being some kind of slimy mercenary—but when you get right down to it, it’s a very important part of our legal system that people be able to hire someone to advocate for them regardless of public or personal opinion.
I bring this up because otherwise, the natural inclination when people hear that the law form that represented Jammie Thomas against the RIAA is now suing Scribd for copyright violation is to consider them two-faced slimy mercenary bastards—and I have little doubt among the Slashdot crowd there will be a lot of that.
Lawyers Joe Sibley and Kiwi Camara are representing the author of a book who found her work being offered on Scribd, but they are seeking class-action status to represent “every author who owns a valid registered copyright in a work infringed by Scribd.”
Although Scribd does abide by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and take down copyrighted material when informed of it, and has even implemented a system to prevent such material from being reposted after its takedown, this does not go far enough for Sibley and Camara.
“Under the aegis of self-promoting misinterpretations of federal statutes,” the lawyers wrote in their complaint, “the West Coast technology industry has produced a number of start-up firms premised on the notion that commercial copyright infringement is not illegal, unless and until the injured party discovers and complains of the infringing activity, and (the) infringer fails to respond to such complaints.”
Camara & Sibley added to the complaint, “Apparently (the West Coast start-ups) believe any business may misappropriate and then publish intellectual property, as long as it ceases to use a stolen work when an author complains…Many millions of dollars have been invested in this business plan.”
However, this is more or less exactly what the DMCA “safe harbor” provision does mean, and has been interpreted to mean by the courts in the past: Internet service providers cannot be held responsible for copyright violations by their users as long as they act to remove the violating material as soon as they are informed of it.
This is one of the laws that lets the Internet work, that lets websites operate without fear of being sued for something their users post. I can’t see a court siding with Camara & Sibley’s interpretation. But then, that’s just my uninformed opinion, and I am hardly a lawyer myself at any rate.
September 21st, 2009 at 8:34 am
For me, all I require from Scribd is that they will be prompt and thorough in removing my copyrighted material, soon after they are informed about the copyright violation.
I don’t expect Scribd to pre-screen every book that is uploaded to their site. That would be a bottleneck that would slow down Scrid, rendering it virtually useless and practically unbearable — like rush hour traffic in New York.
Mihael Pastore
50 Benefits of Ebooks