I have been reading with interest the online discussion over Scribd.com

If you're unfamiliar with it... in their words 'Scribd began with a simple observation – that there's a writer in all of us. Today, Scribd is the place where you publish, discover and discuss original writings and documents.' Surely a laudable, innocuous-sounding concept?

The answer is less than straightforward. In effect what Scribd is providing is a mechanism for users to upload and tag content for others to consume and download. It's firmly aimed, supposedly, at self-publishers or content-owners.

Of course, unauthorised copyrighted content is cropping up all over the place on Scribd. So as you might imagine it's attracting a lot of interest in the publishing sector. Two of the latest pieces are Alison Flood's appraisal on thebookseller.com last week and this article in the Guardian.

For me the real issue surrounding Scribd is the user's responsibility for their own actions, and it's as old as the web. For year's there has been an issue with people posting stuff that they either don't have the rights to legally, or they shouldn't in someone else's opinion.

Scribd make it clear the resonsibilty is in the hands of users when it comes to posting content. See their general terms. It has also said publicly that it does not police the site - it expects the community to do that itself - but will remove content on request.

Which means that so long as they are seen to be acting on information provided to them by those who have an issue with certain content in a reasonable timeframe, then they are acting within their stated remit. And it's true that most reports I have seen online suggest their staff are friendly and react quickly.

But the problem lies in the passive nature of this moderation. It wrestles the onus onto content owners, who no doubt have better things to do, to check to see if their content has been illegally posted. And of course users can always put the content back up again! OK, there are automatic checks, but users are canny and have plenty of tricks to get around those, if they are that way inclined.

Such automatic checking, without active moderation, is only as good as the technology it uses, which is always flawed by its nature.

In many ways it is similar to implementing a automatic system to vet out unacceptable words, such as swearing or racist terms, but not imposing any checks on the context or purpose of all the acceptable words, and so can miss things like harrassment or bullying, or even simple stuff like deliberate mispellings to 'get around the bots'.

Of course I'm not in a position to comment on the quality or otherwise of Scribd's auto-checking of copyrighted works. But it's clear to see where the gap lies, no matter how good their systems. I've seen plenty of content posted that looks copyrighted to me, big titles by well known authors, and I'd suspect that some of that content was not posted with the right authority. Have a browse and see for yourselves.

So what's the solution? Stop file sharing sites? Well that's just never going to happen. For every Scribd there are dozens of 'underground' sites, torrent networks, etc. Give up content rights altogether? No publisher will, or should, ever do that - it's their product.

Where the real solution lies IMO is in understanding users and then providing a compelling proposition to the market. Sites like Scribd thrive not just because people want stuff for free, but also because there's a genuine demand for the content itself.

People are willing to pay for products if they value the content and feel the price is acceptable. Ask yourself, is the hardback jacket price a suitable price point for a new e-book?

They are even more willing to pay if they get something they couldn't get elsewhere, like goodies or extras. Just think how much money is spent every year on repackaged DVD box sets with the latest special features, director commentaries, and cool new boxes.

'Honesty box' experiements, like with Radiohead's last album launch, have also proved people understand the value of the artist and their need to make money from their works too.

If publishers can get their digital content strategy right, then legit sites like Scribd, file sharing networks and so on, will keep on going but pose only a minor threat to the markets publishers need to survive.

And in some cases, free content on those sites can even stimulate demand for the genuine article, reaching audiences that may never have paid in the first instance, but whose appetites have been whetted by a freebie.