Digital Media

Editors' note: This is a guest column. See Larry Downes' bio below.

A month and a half after Google and the leading trade associations for publishers and authors withdrew their proposed settlement over Google Books, the parties on Friday filed a new version of the agreement.

The hope is that this new draft (now weighing in at 165 pages) will respond to the many objections to the original version, particularly those from the U.S. Department of Justice.

Significantly, the revised settlement excludes books published outside the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, and Australia. And the registry that will collect royalties on sales of out-of-print works whose copyright owners are unknown will now act independently of Google. Some privacy concerns were also clarified. But I doubt that those who screamed the loudest will be satisfied with the changed document.

What the objectors--including most of Google's competitors, regulators, and a gaggle of overwrought law professors--seemed to dislike most was Google's audacity, specifically in using technology to solve a problem created by lawmakers in the first place. New objections, more attenuated and jargon-laded, will no doubt follow, until federal judge Denny Chin grabs the reigns of this increasingly unwieldy class action and steers it to resolution.

Let's back up. In 2004, Google began to scan all of the books languishing in some of the world's leading research libraries. Today, Google Books lets anyone search the contents of these libraries for free. For books whose copyright has expired, Google makes the entire text available and downloadable.

Citing possible copyright infringement, however, Google was sued in 2005 by the leading trade associations for authors and publishers. After three years of intensive negotiations, the two sides worked out a detailed settlement. The original agreement seemed to create a cheap and elegant solution to a problem that has plagued scholars, librarians, and ordinary readers for decades: how to provide low-cost access to books no longer in print but whose copyrights have yet to expire.

But then the objections began pouring into Judge Chin's chambers. The problem, according to most of these complaints, is that the agreement gives too much market power to Google over out-of-print books. How's that again? Out-of-print books, by definition, are those for which there is no market today, nor likely to be one any time in the future.

Thanks to advances in information technology, it may now be cost-effective to offer these works to their limited, if passionate, audiences. Google Books, in any case, is investing heavily to develop these markets. The revised settlement makes it even easier for potential competitors to do the same without having to rescan the old books. But let's not kid ourselves. It will be some time before we know if there's any revenue here worth fighting about, let alone an antitrust problem.

The real problem, which no one has the guts to face directly, is the sad state of copyright law. Copyright grants authors and their publishers the exclusive right to make copies of their work in order to encourage the growth of intellectual life, from novels to research papers to songs to cookbooks.

Lawmakers are supposed to balance that powerful control--in this case, a legal monopoly--against the value to consumers of letting information flow as freely as possible. That's a goal that has become fantastically easier and cheaper with the creation of the World Wide Web, high-resolution cell phone displays and other portable reading devices, and the digitization of just about all the world's information, much of it thanks to companies like Google.

Yet even as information distribution gets cheaper, entertainment industry lobbyists have pressured lawmakers to extend the copyright monopoly to absurd levels. The "fair use" exceptions have been all but eliminated through strategic litigating. Civil and criminal penalties for infringement are regularly enhanced, as recently as last year. In the only case of thousands brought by the recording industry that actually went to trial, a file-sharing user was found liable for nearly $2 million dollars in damages for sharing 24 songs. Yet the Obama Justice Department filed a brief supporting that penalty as "rational."

Worst of all, consumers must wait longer and longer for works to enter the public domain, where they can be freely copied, adapted, and sampled. As recently as 1909, a copyright lasted only 28 years in the United States. Since then, Congress has repeatedly extended it and applied the extensions retroactively. Today, copyright runs from the moment of creation until the death of the author, plus another 70 years.

Acknowledging that the U.S. Constitution requires copyright to be for "limited times," the late Congressman Sonny Bono once proposed changing the term to forever minus a day. No copyright on work produced by Disney has ever expired. That's not a coincidence.

Since most published works never make a profit, however, millions of books still under copyright are now out of print, existing only in the ghost towns of a few dingy library stacks. The authors of a growing number of these works are long dead, having made no provision for the inheritance of their rights. Since these books cannot be copied without permission, and no one knows who can give that permission, they inhabit a kind of intellectual limbo. Copyright scholars refer to them as "orphan works."

So far, Google has scanned 10 million books. Two million are old enough to be free of copyright, and another 2 million are still in print (Google has made separate agreements with the publishers of those books). The other 6 million are in copyright but out of print, many of them orphans. Thanks to the madness of recent copyright extensions, that category is certain to get bigger all the time. Congress has tried and failed for years to pass legislation dealing with orphan works.

In large part, the revised Google Books settlement would bring these books back to the world of the living. How? Copyright owners who don't want to participate in the deal must opt out of it, impossible by definition for orphan works. (The opt-out, to dispel a common myth, can occur at any time, not just before the settlement is approved.) So Google would have the right to make these books available in digital form, with any revenue going to a new nonprofit registry that will attempt to locate and compensate the owners.

Tellingly, the objectors say little to nothing about the impact of the settlement on consumers, who already benefit from Google's efforts and would benefit even more, if the agreement is approved.

The interests of information users ought to be the top priority of U.S. copyright officials, but Marybeth Peters, U.S. Register of Copyrights, condemned the original agreement. She spoke on behalf of the theoretical owners of orphan works--authors and publishers, in other words, who were given a powerful monopoly and then abandoned it. Peters accused Google and the organizations who sued the company of conspiring to execute an "end-run around copyright law as we know it."

There's the real problem. Copyright "as we know it" is a disaster and an embarrassment. Rather than complain about the ingenuity, leadership, and careful diplomacy of Google in trying to clean it up, why doesn't Peters focus on the job she was hired to do: urging Congress to bring copyright law in line with the realities of the 21st century?

Congress and its enthrallment to entertainment lobbyists created this mess. Reset the balance of copyright to something fair for authors and consumers, and all the objections to the Google Books settlement evaporate.

Customers of Verizon Communications who pirate music files may soon receive an unwelcome letter from the company.

Verizon, the second-largest phone company in the United States, is expected to begin issuing "copyright notices" on behalf of the Recording Industry Association of America to those accused of illegally downloading songs from the Web, according to sources with knowledge of the agreement.

The sources, who asked for anonymity, said Verizon's letter campaign is part of a test, which is expected to begin on Thursday. Jonathan Lamy, an RIAA spokesman, confirmed the existence of the test but declined further comment.

The move is significant for the music industry because among Internet service providers, Verizon has typically been among the most reluctant to intervene in copyright cases on behalf of entertainment companies.

"We recognize the importance of copyright and the need to enforce those copyrights," a Verizon spokesman said in a statement to CNET. "Without that enforcement, intellectual property won't be generated at all. At the same time, it's important for our customers to be assured that they won't have their privacy rights trampled."

The letter the RIAA will send to Verizon, and will likely be forwarded to customers, is similar to those issued in the past by other ISPs, such as AT&T, Comcast, and Cox Communications. The RIAA's letter has typically notified customers that they have been accused of illegally sharing songs and informed them that such activity is illegal.

In the letter, the user is advised to delete the content they distribute. It's important to note that not included in the letter are threats of service termination or interruptions, or any talk of a "graduated response." That's the term the RIAA uses to describe a deterrent program whereby an ISP gradually ratchets up penalties or warnings to suspected file sharers.

Last December, the RIAA announced that it would no longer seek to file new lawsuits against individuals accused of illegal file sharing. Instead, the trade group representing the four largest music labels would try to convince ISPs to adopt a graduated-response program. While some companies, such as Cox, have said they will terminate service for chronic copyright violators, most ISPs have shied away from suggesting service termination.

More importantly, in the 11 months since the RIAA dropped the filing of lawsuits on a widespread basis, not a single ISP has acknowledged a formal agreement with the RIAA.

As for Verizon, it appears that the company is expanding the antipiracy relationships it has with the entertainment sector. In past years, as many of its competitors began to lock arms with entertainment companies, Verizon appeared to hold back. Verizon fought the RIAA when the group went to court to force the ISP to turn over the name of an alleged copyright violator.

Verizon also opposed antipiracy legislation important to the film and music sectors.

Verizon's attitude toward antipiracy seemed to change in 2005, when the company quietly agreed to forward notices to suspected illegal file sharers on behalf of Disney. In exchange, Verizon received the rights to transmit 12 of Disney's TV channels over its broadband network.

Several other ISPs have recently begun forwarding copyright notices on behalf of the film studios, according to the sources who spoke to CNET. It's not yet clear which other ISPs are involved.

Last week, a music site called BlueBeat made headlines by offering Beatles songs as free streams and 25 cent downloads. The Beatles are known for not making their songs legally available on iTunes or any other online forum, so observers rightly asked "how are they doing this legally?"

EMI, the record label that owns The Beatles' recordings, has a simple response: they're not doing this legally. But here's where the story gets very strange.

The legal reasoning in this case is straight out of "Alice in Wonderland."

(Credit: Wikimedia Commons (public domain illustration))

BlueBeat is owned by a company called Media Rights Technologies, which specializes in digital rights management technology. DRM is supposed to be used to prevent copyright infringement. But according to a 2007 blog post on HuffingtonPost.com by the company's founder, Hank Risan, MRT backed into this business after being--get this--targeted by the RIAA for copyright infringement.

As Risan explains in his post, he and a partner had posted a bunch of streaming-audio files to a Web site about the history of music. The RIAA issued a takedown notice, and the site took the streams down.

The streams had been protected by Windows Media DRM, but according to Risan, an update to the Media Player broke the DRM. In response to this flaw, Risan created MRT and built his own DRM system, which he claimed would be far more robust than the systems on the market at that time. Then, in 2007, MRT sent cease-and-desist letters to Microsoft, Apple, Adobe, and RealNetworks, ordering them to use MRT's DRM technology instead of their own, on threat of legal action.

The legal reasoning was twisted--basically, MRT argued that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act should force these companies to use the most robust DRM technology available, even if that technology was created by somebody else. Predictably, nothing ever came of this demand.

MRT's legal reasoning is equally funny this time around, as Ars Technica reports. According to the report, MRT claims that it didn't post the exact Beatles recordings. Instead, it posted "psychoacoustic simulations," then added simple video content to them. This constitutes a new audiovisual work, and isn't covered by the existing copyrights, MRT argues. In fact, MRT even went so far as to apply for copyrights on the "new" works!

Perhaps this is all some kind of metacommentary on the frustrating inconsistency of U.S. copyright law, but I predict that MRT is going to be laughed out of court. In the meantime, if you want your Beatles music online, it's still available on BlueBeat as of the time I posted this. I didn't want to give the company a credit card to test the whether the downloads work, but the streams sound pretty close to perfect...especially considering that they're only psychoacoustic simulations.

France has adopted a strong antipiracy law, one that may mean those who chronically share unauthorized movies and music online will lose Web access for up to a year.

France's top constitutional court approved a revised plan to penalize those accused multiple times of infringing intellectual property, according to a report published Thursday in The New York Times.

In the spring, the court rejected an earlier version of the law.

Dan Glickman, chairman and CEO of the Motion Picture Association of America, applauded the French court's decision.

"Today's decision is an enormous victory for creators everywhere," Glickman said. "It is our hope that ISPs will fully honor their promise to cooperate and that the French government will take the necessary measures to dedicate resources to handle the enormous task ahead."

Rick Cotton, executive vice president and general counsel at NBC Universal, said: "The French action recognizes that jobs and economic growth in creative industries are under assault by digital theft. We need a safe and secure Internet that enables consumers to access content easily but does not facilitate illegal file sharing that kills jobs in creative sectors."

Under the law, a new agency will be created that will issue termination notices to Internet service providers, and they will in turn cut off access to customers accused of piracy. But first, in cases where the agency wants to terminate service, it must first go through some kind of judicial review.

One of the ways the law was revised to gain acceptance by the French court is to require a judge to review each case before anyone's Internet access is shut down.

It's doubtful that a law like this could be adopted in the United States, at least at this point. Both the film and music industries have shied away from lobbying for a three-strikes law. But they have appealed to ISPs to voluntarily create what they refer to as a graduated-response program. This would call for the ISPs to issue warnings to chronic copyright offenders and potentially cut off service for those who refuse to comply.

There is yet another way that copyright owners could get ISPs to help in their antipiracy efforts, according to Gwen Hinze, international policy director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation.

She says the United States could agree to a three-strikes rule as part of the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, or ACTA, being negotiated by legislators in the United States, Japan, the European Union, among others.

In this way, U.S. copyright owners could create a law without any public debate, Hinze said. She called any such attempt "policy laundering."

ACTA members are scheduled to gather again for more talks later this year.

Updated at 3 p.m. to include comments by Electronic Frontier Foundation.

Update: 5:42 p.m. PT: To include information about a witness being compensated by EMI.

The copyright lawsuit filed by major recording company EMI against Michael Robertson, founder of MP3tunes.com, took an unexpected turn on Friday.

A U.S. District judge will allow EMI to file suit against Robertson personally--not just his company, MP3tunes, according to a copy of the judge's decision. Besides accusing MP3tunes of violating its copyright in a suit filed in November 2007, EMI also named Robertson as a defendant.

A year ago, a judge in the case threw out the copyright-infringing charges against Robertson, but on Friday, Judge William Pauley, for the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York, decided to let EMI once again name Robertson as a defendant.

Michael Robertson, founder of MP3tunes.com

(Credit: James Martin/CNET)

The reason for the switch was the new evidence provided by MP3tunes' former president. In April of 2008, Emily Richards gave a deposition. In July of this year, 10 months after she left the company, she gave another one. In the latter testimony, Richards said Robertson was making a lot of the decisions for the company and that Robertson handled "technical, product decision, and legal matters without her involvement." This, argues EMI, shows that Robertson exercised control over MP3tunes and this should allow it to bring a suit against him personally.

MP3tunes, which allows users to store their songs in a digital locker and access them from any Web-enabled device, argued that this statement was consistent with Richards' earlier testimony. The judge didn't buy it.

"From the court's review of both depositions, it is clear that Richards provided new testimony," Pauley wrote.

Robertson said on Monday afternoon that the difference between Richards first deposition and her last was that EMI paid her $10,000. An EMI spokeswoman could not be reached for comment.

In Pauley's decision, he notes that EMI agreed to compensate Richards for "documented legal fees and costs up to $10,000" as well as pay expenses for her lawyer. The judge apparently saw nothing wrong with the arrangement. Pauley however noted that Richard testified that she left the company at Robertson's request, a fact that "bears on her credibility."

The good news for Robertson, who also founded MP3.com (now owned by CNET publisher CBS Interactive) and Linspire, is that Pauley threw out one of EMI's copyright claims. EMI's other claims, however, will be allowed to proceed.

Robertson, who in the past has called EMI's attempts to sue him personally "despicable," said that EMI's attempts to go after his personal assets is the music label's newest way of discouraging technologists from developing businesses that use their content in ways they don't like.

"We want to argue the merits of the case," Robertson said. "They want to drag it out...people should be able to store their music online."

The case is scheduled to go to trial in March.

The Pirate Bay founders: Peter Sunde Kolmissoppi, Fredrik Neij, and Gottfrid Svartholm.

(Credit: The Pirate Bay)

Update: 4:30 p.m. PT To include statement from BREIN

Dutch antipiracy group BREIN says it has found documents tying one of The Pirate Bay founders to the company listed as the owner of the Thepiratebay.org, Reservella.

According to a blog post by Peter Sunde Kolmissoppi, one of the founders of the BitTorrent search engine, BREIN has filed a complaint against The Pirate Bay founders, who include Fredrik Neij and Gottfrid Svartholm. The Pirate Bay has been outlawed in the Netherlands.

During that hearing, BREIN produced documents, including a credit report, showing that Neij is listed as CEO of Reservella. Kolmissoppi denied that Neij is connected to Reservella, and he said the documents are phony.

"We were quite sure (Neij) did not have an offshore company set up," Kolmissoppi said. "And if he did, at least he would be smart enough to not be a director in it."

Tim Kuik, BREIN's director did not address Kolmissoppi's allegations that his group forged documents in a statement issued by the group.

"Denying their responsibility and playing hide and seek is what the gentlemen of The Pirate Bay have been doing since they began their illegal business", saids Tim Kuik, BREIN's director. "We have sufficient reason to assume that they still are responsible. The company on the Seychelles looks like a thin veil to cover up what is really going on."

The Pirate Bay founders maintain that the site is owned by Reservella, a company based in the Republic of Seychelles, off the coast of Africa. This spring the entertainment industry alleged that Reservella is controlled by the founders of The Pirate Bay.

This has been an eventful few weeks for The Pirate Bay. It has been hounded across Europe, as copyright owners have chased it from one Internet service provider to the next. The site has gone down for extended periods several times, with the most recent outage occurring on Monday.

Even after some fans have given the site up for dead, it comes right back. But there's no denying that film studios, TV networks, book publishers, music labels, and anyone else that objects to the file swapping that The Pirate Bay helps facilitate is ratcheting up the pressure on the three founders.

A year-long jail sentence and a $3.6 million judgment is already hanging over their heads. Any ISP that provides bandwidth to The Pirate Bay faces legal challenges. And now the Dutch courts have The Pirate Bay in their crosshairs.

Kolmissoppi said he intends to file criminal charges against BREIN and some of its leaders for fraud.

Lawyers working on a $1 billion copyright lawsuit filed by Viacom against Google's YouTube may have uncovered evidence that employees of the video site were among those who uploaded unauthorized content to YouTube.

In addition, internal YouTube e-mails indicate that YouTube managers knew and discussed the existence of unauthorized content on the site with employees but chose not to remove the material, three sources with knowledge of the case told CNET.

The e-mails, according to the sources who asked for anonymity because of the ongoing litigation, surfaced during an exchange of information between the two sides of the legal dispute. They are one of the cornerstones of Viacom's case, as well as that of a separate class action lawsuit filed against Google and YouTube by a group of content owners, the sources said. The group includes a European soccer league and a music-publishing company.

Such evidence could be a major blow to YouTube's defense. If managers possessed "actual knowledge" of copyright infringement on the site and did not quickly remove it, the company may not be entitled to protection under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act's safe-harbor provision, according to legal experts.

"The facts you described could very well be the smoking gun that puts a hole through Google's case," Roger Goff, an entertainment attorney not involved in the case, told CNET News. "(If the facts are accurate), Google will have a very difficult time claiming that (its staff members) don't undermine its protection."

The provision, established in 1998, was designed to give online services a measure of protection from liability for infringing materials uploaded to their sites--as long as they meet a certain criteria, including:

• (A)(i) The services don't have actual knowledge that the material, or an activity using the material on the system or network, is infringing.
• (ii) in the absence of such actual knowledge, is not aware of facts or circumstances from which infringing activity is apparent; or
• (iii) upon obtaining such knowledge or awareness, acts expeditiously to remove, or disable access to, the material.

The entertainment industry has been skeptical about YouTube's claims that it did not have knowledge of the once-plentiful amounts of infringing content available on the site. Clips from popular TV shows, feature films, or sports events would often bubble up in YouTube's Most Viewed or Most Discussed sections.

It should be noted that the correspondence described by sources likely make up only a sliver of the material exchanged, and there's no way to know the full spectrum of internal discussions regarding copyright at YouTube.

"The characterizations of the supposed evidence, made in violation of a court order, are wrong, misleading, or lack important context and notably come on the heels of a series of significant setbacks for the plaintiffs," Aaron Zamost, a YouTube spokesman, said Monday evening. "The evidence will show that we go above and beyond our legal obligations to protect the rights of content owners."

Any questions about what YouTube employees may or may not have uploaded to YouTube must also be asked of Viacom's employees. Court documents show that on August 25, Viacom agreed to turn over records that shed light on "Viacom's decisions to upload or authorize the uploading of videos to YouTube" and on the company's policies "for allowing videos to remain on YouTube for marketing promotional or other business reasons."

This suggests that Viacom employees also uploaded clips to the site. A company representative declined to comment.

Viacom has long acknowledged that it was one of the first to promote shows online by posting clips to YouTube. But the conglomerate has also said the uploading of clips does not undermine or diminish its copyright claim.

YouTube's counterargument has always been, how is the company supposed to know the difference between pirated and legally uploaded clips when companies like Viacom are among those uploading material?

Google acquired YouTube for $1.65 billion in October 2006, a price tag that set the bar for Web 2.0 acquisitions. Long before that, many in the film and television industries claimed that YouTube was building a big audience by enabling people to pirate professionally produced television shows and films.

Since Viacom first filed its suit in March 2007, accusing Google and YouTube of encouraging users to commit intellectual-property theft, many online services and entertainment companies have closely watched the case because of its broad implications. What the YouTube-Viacom suit could help settle, to some degree, is who is responsible for policing and initiating the removal of pirated materials--the copyright owners or the operators of online services?

But should the case ever go to trial, the outcome may be less significant than legal experts once predicted. While the lawsuit has meandered in the courts for 30 months, other legal battles featuring companies with less marquee value have already gone a long way toward determining Web services' key issues surrounding copyright.

Two weeks ago, U.S. District Judge A. Howard Matz issued a decision saying video site Veoh was not responsible for copyright violations committed by users because it was entitled to protection under the DMCA. Universal Music Group, the world's largest record company, had filed a copyright suit against Veoh that experts said was very similar to the YouTube-Viacom case. Matz's decision appeared to set an important precedent that would help YouTube and Google argue against Viacom, the parent company of MTV Networks and Paramount Pictures.

"The issue is whether Veoh takes appropriate steps to deal with copyright infringement," Matz wrote. He concluded that it had.

YouTube supporters cheered Matz's ruling, believing that it would apply to YouTube's situation because the Web's largest video site had long established and enforced a "takedown policy," whereby the company removed infringing content, once notified by a copyright owner. And later, the video site took steps not required by the DMCA by establishing a state-of-the-art filtering process that helps block material from being uploaded to the site.

But attorneys for Viacom and members of the class action are expected to argue that YouTube's filtering system is a gaping hole in YouTube's defense. One of the major complaints that content owners had about YouTube was that before the company launched its filtering technology, they were forced to file takedown notices for every instance of infringement. In some cases, an entertainment company could remove a popular clip, only to see someone else upload it again seconds later.

Lawyers for Viacom and the class action group are expected to argue that if YouTube was notified that a specific clip was pirated, and had the power to prevent copies from going up but did not act to remove them, the company violated the DMCA.

The plaintiffs use as evidence a paraphrased statement from Chad Hurley, YouTube's CEO, and one of its three co-founders, which appeared in The New York Times in February 2007, the sources said.

"(Hurley) said the company was still working on its filtering technology," the Times wrote. "He said it had agreed to use it to identify and possibly remove copyrighted material from Warner Music, and it would discuss a similar arrangement with Viacom as part of a broader deal."

A Viacom representative said at the time, "They are saying we will only protect your content if you do a deal with us--if not, we will steal it."

The YouTube-Viacom suit is unlikely to go to trial before next year. Certainly, with YouTube wooing entertainment companies as it attempts to battle Hulu, Netflix, Crackle, iTunes, and other digital-video outlets, there exists the possibility that YouTube and Viacom will come to some kind of settlement.

A settlement might be anticlimatic, but could be the best for all concerned.

Update 3 p.m. PT: To include an updated comment from Google.

Google said on Friday that an error caused the search engine to remove The Pirate Bay from its search pages.

"Google received a (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down request that erroneously listed Thepiratebay.org, and as a result, this URL was accidentally removed from the Google search index," Google said in a statement. "We are now correcting the removal, and you can expect to see Thepiratebay.org back in Google search results this afternoon."

Later, Google updated it's statement: "The removal appears to be an internal error and not part of a DMCA request."

Separately, The Pirate Bay's site appeared down Friday afternoon at 1:15 p.m. PT, at least in many U.S. areas.

Google didn't provide any details about what caused the error but at this point it doesn't seem to be some kind of orchestrated effort to bring down The Pirate Bay--at least on Google's part. According to Google, it was just a goof.

The DMCA's safe-harbor provision is designed to shield Internet service providers from being held liable for copyright infringement committed by users. But the provision has a certain set of requirements that ISPs must meet, and one of them includes promptly removing infringing material.

The case is a bit ironic, in that it's well-established that The Pirate Bay does not store any unauthorized copies of films, music, TV shows, or other content.

Indeed, the service can help people find pirated content, but so can a lot of search engines, including Google. The notion that the Pirate Bay would be pulled down because of a single copyright claim is sort of humorous.

If that's all that was needed to have the site kicked off, it would have happened years ago. The music and film industries, as well as other copyright owners, have complained about The Pirate Bay for years.

Peter Sunde-Kolmisoppi told Swedish newspaper Svenska Dagblated that The Pirate Bay's attorney sent a letter to both Google and the companies that are suspected of being behind the allegations and demanded that the Pirate Bay be returned to Google's index. The Pirate Bay accused Google of censoring a competitor and of stifling free expression, the paper reported.

Scribd, an online publishing tool where users share their manuscripts and essays, while others post pirated copies of books, denied that the company encourages copyright infringement.

A lawsuit filed by author Elaine Scott on Friday alleged that Scribd violated Scott's copyright and those belonging to many others. According to a copy of the suit obtained by CNET News, Scott claimed that Scribd "shamelessly profits" from stolen works and "built a technology that's broken barriers to copyright infringement on a global scale."

On Sunday evening, Scribd issued a comment to CNET in response to the suit.

"Ms. Scott's lawsuit is without merit," Scribd said in its statement. "Scribd is an online service provider that complies with--and goes above and beyond--the provisions of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). Scribd therefore is entitled to the full protection of the DMCA's safe harbor provisions."

By now, anyone following online copyright issues at YouTube, Veoh, Project Playlist, and many other sites knows that the DMCA's safe harbor provision is designed to protect Internet service providers from holding the bag for users who commit illegal acts.

The provision protects sites that meet its requirements. Scott claims Scribd fails to meet the requirements and the company says nonsense.

"Scribd does not want unauthorized content on our site," the company said. "We built the industry's leading (filtering) technology to prevent the upload of unauthorized documents. This is one of the reasons why best-selling authors and many of the world's largest publishers have chosen to put their works on Scribd."