Irony at its Best

Scribd is a website that aids in the filtering of copyrighted work. For anyone who doesn’t know, a copyright filter is a program that notifies you when you try to upload any type of copyrighted work. An example would be someone uploading a video to some website, while using a popular (and copyrighted) song as background music. If that website had a copyright filter, then the filter would recognize the song you were trying to upload, tell you that the song is copyrighted, and not allow you to upload that video.
But in this class action lawsuit case, the shoe is on the other foot. The case was brought up when a children’s book author, Elaine Scott, complained that the copyright filter was an infringement of copyright itself. And, technically she is correct.
The way Scribd works is that for its filter recognizes a copyrighted work, it first has to be uploaded onto their filter. And because anyone is allowed to upload a piece of work, claiming it is copyrighted, Scribd neither asks for permission from the copyright owner, nor pays a fee for uploading the work, which in itself is an infringement of copyright laws. So basically Scribd is doing exactly what it has set out to stop, the illegal uploading of copyrighted works.
As of now, the court is in favor of Scribd, but the results are not in yet, and no one is sure just how this case is going to turn out.
But personally, I feel that this both extremely contradictory and hysterical. Basically the artist are angry at this website for protecting their work. Does that really make any sense?