This post has been pulled for Copyright Infringement.

From the article:

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

p4p3rm4t3: This post has been pulled for Copyright Infringement.

Damn, subby, really? Tweets have been being yanked since at leas last year... now they're doing a better thing and showing them as taken down via DMCA request. This is, IMO, a very good change in policy, and I, for one, am glad they're doing it.

\#transparency, I don't tweet, nor have a tweeter account

Pouring Coca-Cola on my Levis jeans right now.

MagicHateball: From the article:

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

I think I'd sooner cite Wikipedia or some dude's sucky blog. Atrocious.

JonZoidberg: MagicHateball: From the article:

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

I think I'd sooner cite Wikipedia or some dude's sucky blog. Atrocious.

This.
Also, "journalists" are being taught to use the social media when digging for information. Anything to feed the beast.

fluffy2097: And absolutely nothing of value was lost.

Came to post this.
Leaving litigious.

HotIgneous Intruder: JonZoidberg: MagicHateball: From the article:

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

I think I'd sooner cite Wikipedia or some dude's sucky blog. Atrocious.

This.
Also, "journalists" are being taught to use the social media when digging for information. Anything to feed the beast.

Depends entirely on the subject matter.

If its a physics or history report, unless your topic is 'stupid controversy' or similar, it's not relevant.

But social media is relevant to journalism because journalism is about current affairs, and many CA things are handled with tweets and similar media.

Seems like a lot of the haha funny or deep tweets end up being plagiarized or paraphrased versions of famous shiat people have said. Regardless, I hope "copyright infringement" dies a horrible death in the gutter someday.

fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

Where you might be confused is the doctrine that copying only a small portion of a work is a factor considered in a fair use analysis under 17 USC 107 - i.e. if a movie is 2 hours, and you copy 30 seconds for a review, you're unlikely to be found liable for copyright infringement.
However, the consideration is not an absolute amount, but an amount in relation to the work as a whole. If the original work is 160 characters in length, then you can copy the entire thing, and thus this factor would actually work against you.

tl;dr: Don't just scream "fair use, motherfarkers" when you've never even read the relevant statute.

This shiat is getting out of hand.

JonZoidberg: MagicHateball: From the article:

"...the bigger point is that tweets subject to a copyright notice no longer go down a memory hole. This is important to reporters and scholars who use Twitter as a news source and now have an explanation when a piece of news vanishes due to copyright reasons."

For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

I think I'd sooner cite Wikipedia or some dude's sucky blog. Atrocious.

Wikipedia generally lists sources. So you would just go to those sources and cite them directly, never giving your professor or peer reviewer any indication that you utilized Wikipedia.

Just watch out for Citogenesis

If you put that tweet button on your site I'm taking it as permission to rip your content.

MagicHateball: For you any scholars who need to cite tweets in your papers, this may be useful: http://www.mla.org/style/handbook_faq/cite_a_tweet

The MLA handbook acknowledges that the date and time are less-than-completely informative due to the lack of timezone information in the citation.

Why don't they just tell people to include timezone information?

fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

StrikitRich: fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

URLs of pirate torrent sites, or to nude pictures of Kat Dennings. (sfw)

StrikitRich: fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

Almost all of the removed tweets are links to pirated copies of "stuff".

However, I wonder if something like someone tweeting a huge movie spoiler could come under copyright infringement? ("Just saw Skyfall...James Bond dies?!? WTF?")

Theaetetus: StrikitRich: fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

URLs of pirate torrent sites, or to nude pictures of Kat Dennings. (sfw)

I did not know these existed.

/Off to GIS, then to my bunk.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: StrikitRich: fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

Almost all of the removed tweets are links to pirated copies of "stuff".

However, I wonder if something like someone tweeting a huge movie spoiler could come under copyright infringement? ("Just saw Skyfall...James Bond dies?!? WTF?")

Nah. There's nothing copied from the original, so it's not a copyright infringement. Instead, it's a new work - specifically, a review and criticism.

Faps_in_the_kitchen: Theaetetus: StrikitRich: fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

I agree. What are they pulling own, music lyrics or movie quotes? Hotlinks?

URLs of pirate torrent sites, or to nude pictures of Kat Dennings. (sfw)

I did not know these existed.

/Off to GIS, then to my bunk the kitchen.

... judging from your handle.

fudgefactor7: This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.

FTFA: "Google, for instance, is now receiving more than 1 million copyright requests a month,"

What Google is being mainly asked to remove is links to copyrighted material.

I presume the DCMAed tweets are those that contain links to file servers or torrent streams.

Occasionally when doing a google search, Google tells me that some items that should be in the results have been DCMAed and offers to show me the take-down notices.

So I presume the pulled tweets are along the lines of "full HD Avengers at megatwats.com/330107"

Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.
There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

Teufelaffe: You cannot copyright a Tweet

You can copyright a Tweet

Trying to hang a blanket statement like "you cannot copyright a Tweet" based on the short phrase exception ignores precedent, as well as the lack of definition of a short phrase, is both naive and misleading. For counterexample, I'd happy point to the well-under-140-character 'shortest story ever written' by Hemingway: "For sale: baby shoes. Never worn," which would certainly be covered under copyright. The key point is whether something is, as a whole, a "short phrase" rather than a creative work. Not merely that it's "short".

Theaetetus: Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.
There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

Warlordtrooper: Theaetetus: Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.
There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

Hmmm, does this mean that we'll see a decrease in people who just quote lousy songs in a cry for attention?

I just tweeted "Rectangle with round corners"

Let's see how fast I get taken down.

Theaetetus: Warlordtrooper: Theaetetus: Nem Wan: Where did the completely wrong precedent come from that a hyperlink to copyrighted material hosted elsewhere (telling someone where copyrighted material is) constitutes an act of copyright infringement? Is this settled law?

If it's settled law, then how is it wrong precedent? ;)

But anyway, it's not that the link itself is direct infringement, but that it's contributory or induced infringement - you're intentionally directing someone else to where they can commit copyright infringement.
There've been a few court cases in different ways, as well as some cases in the UK and elsewhere in Europe. Not really settled either way.

I can tell a bank robber where the nearest bank is, That doesn't make me guilty of robbing a bank.

On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

It's not always black and white like that. You can post instructions on the internet how to make a bomb. It's not illegal because you are not actually making a bomb. In fact laws that would prevent how to instructions like that tend to be defined very narrowly because otherwise they get torn down on 1st amendment grounds. In this example nobody is telling the bank robbers to rob the bank and giving them specific directions. All they are doing is saying the bank is on X street and throwing their hands in the air saying "what you do after that is none of my business".

sheer idiocy

This post has been withheld in response to a report from the copyright holder.

Warlordtrooper: Theaetetus: On the other hand, if you tell the bank robber where the bank is, where the guard is at what times, what the code to the safe is, how much cash they have on hand and how to avoid the dye packs, and you're telling him this with the intent that he go rob the bank, then yeah, you're going to be guilty of aiding him. You don't really think the guys who plan robberies walk away scot free because they didn't actually pull the heist, do you?

It's not always black and white like that. You can post instructions on the internet how to make a bomb. It's not illegal because you are not actually making a bomb. In fact laws that would prevent how to instructions like that tend to be defined very narrowly because otherwise they get torn down on 1st amendment grounds. In this example nobody is telling the bank robbers to rob the bank and giving them specific directions. All they are doing is saying the bank is on X street and throwing their hands in the air saying "what you do after that is none of my business".

That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Theaetetus: That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Sooooo, in this scenario would telling a guy who asks "where's the bank!?," "there's a bank over on the corner where you can make a withdraw of your money from your own accounts" would be roughly equivalent to telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: That's the* distinction. If you do it with the intent that the other party commit the crime, then you're inducing the crime. In those cases where hyperlinks have been found to be copyright infringement, the person placing the link intended that people would follow it and engage in copyright infringement. It's not just saying "information is here, do what you will" but "hey, follow this link and download this movie," which is closer to the guy helping plan the heist but not participating.

*the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

Sooooo, in this scenario would telling a guy who asks "where's the bank!?," "there's a bank over on the corner where you can make a withdraw of your money from your own accounts" would be roughly equivalent to telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.
Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

Also:
ProfessorOhki: telling the guy who asks where he can find a BD rip of Major Hollywood Movie 5, "here's a link where you can find a personal back-up copy of a piece of media you legitimately own a copy of?"

See above:
Theaetetus: the other distinction is that, unlike a bank location, there aren't many legitimate reasons to be directing people to locations of torrent files for pirated movies. And since this is civil, rather than criminal, it's a much lower burden of proof on the copyright owner to show that the defendant was sending people to the link to engage in copyright infringement as opposed to, say, to perform critical reviews of the quality of web site design by pirates.

You can claim that you were only intending to give out the URL to people who were going to lawfully format shift, but the jury can judge the credibility of that claim, and if they find that you were more likely than not giving it out to people who were pirating the movie, you're liable. That tenuous excuse that may work to raise a reasonable doubt would be fine for a criminal charge, but it's not enough for a civil one.

Theaetetus: Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.
Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

Interesting point. As long as we're beating this analogy to death: So I've got to wonder, some guy knocks off a bank and I watch him flee into an abandoned building across the street. Customer of the bank comes rushes out and asks me, "where's the thief who took my money?" I point him to the abandoned building.

Now, like you say, if the money was stolen from the bank, the customer doesn't have the right to demand it from the thief because, like you say, the thief can't distribute it. Now, if the customer receives stolen property from the thief; the customer's property, that is... what's my part in all of it?

/Then again, there's that whole other issue of them making legitimate format-shifting impossible by making the tools capable of executing said shift illegal.

I don't know how Twitter works, but I've often thought it would be funny to just write out those little Clone Wars Jedi wisdom statements. Would that be copyright violation? Or just geek violation?

ProfessorOhki: Theaetetus: Nope, because the rip is not lawfully distributed, and while there's an argument to be made that the guy is format-shifting-by-proxy and therefore not infringing, there's no argument that the person he's getting it from has a distribution right. Accordingly, he may be inducing the distributor to infringe, and you're inducing him to engage in contributory infringement.
Specifically, rather than directing someone to the bank, you're directing them to the person who robbed the bank, and telling them to go get stolen loot from him. Maybe they've got an argument that they have some rights to that loot... but the robber doesn't have the right to give out stolen property and so by asking him to do so, they're intending that he break the law again.

Interesting point. As long as we're beating this analogy to death: So I've got to wonder, some guy knocks off a bank and I watch him flee into an abandoned building across the street. Customer of the bank comes rushes out and asks me, "where's the thief who took my money?" I point him to the abandoned building.

Now, like you say, if the money was stolen from the bank, the customer doesn't have the right to demand it from the thief because, like you say, the thief can't distribute it. Now, if the customer receives stolen property from the thief; the customer's property, that is... what's my part in all of it?

Yeah, this analogy is collapsing fast. Anyway, I think there'd be an argument that you aren't inducing it, since you may not be intending for the thief to distribute his stolen goods, but rather the customer to apprehend the thief.
I suppose, if the thief ran past you and shouted "send anyone other than the bank who wants their money to me" (maybe he's an anti-Wall St. vigilante), then it could be argued that if you sent people to him, you're aiding him in his criminal scheme to rob the bank and distribute the assets to the account holders, which would make you liable.

Let's try again with a different analogy... Old man Johnson got a trampoline for his backyard, and while he's away on vacation, Evil Eddie found out about it and broke the lock on his fence, and told you. So you go around telling the neighborhood kids that Eddie had broken the lock and that they should all head there to bounce on the trampoline. Eddie is trespassing, and doesn't have a right to invite others. Now, if one of the kids who shows up is little Billy, whom Johnson had previously invited to bounce on his trampoline any time, Billy isn't trespassing... but that doesn't eliminate Eddie's liability for trespass, nor your liability for inducing others to do so. You're not liable for Billy's actions, but for Eddie's.

/Then again, there's that whole other issue of them making legitimate format-shifting impossible by making the tools capable of executing said shift illegal.

Well, yeah. But if we incorporate that, our analogy starts getting really strange.

DontMakeMeComeBackThere: However, I wonder if something like someone tweeting a huge movie spoiler could come under copyright infringement? ("Just saw Skyfall...James Bond dies?!? WTF?")

Referring to plot details is definitely not infringement of any sort. Persons who are admitted to a pre-release screening are often under NDA until the film's release date (or perhaps the week prior), but once the movie's out, anything's fair game.

Ok, I get that sharing links to copyrighted content is a no-no, but do they mean stuff like.. quoting books or something?

I thought under the law, there was a provision for quoting and things like that.. people aren't... copyrighting specific tweets are they?

"@twituser lol omfg, that sandwich" is suddenly copyrighted?

I.. I don't understand, this sounds kinda of... illegal...

Even if you're quoting a movie, or a book, or a song, 140 characters isn't enough for someone to file a copyright claim against you...