Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(GigaOM)   Apparently now even tweets can get pulled down for "Copyright Infringement"   ( gigaom.com) divider line
11
    More: Asinine, dmca takedown notices, F-SECURE, Gigaom, DMCA  
•       •       •

4977 clicks; posted to Geek » on 05 Nov 2012 at 8:43 AM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results for Smartest or Funniest or Return to comments
fudgefactor7
2012-11-05 08:59:29 AM  
3 votes:
This is retarded, you can't substantially violate a copyright in 160 characters. Fair use, motherfarkers.
Theaetetus
2012-11-05 11:40:53 AM  
2 votes:

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".
HairBolus
2012-11-05 10:48:25 AM  
2 votes:

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"
someguy945
2012-11-05 10:16:50 AM  
2 votes:

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
Theaetetus
2012-11-05 09:56:28 AM  
2 votes:

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.
Quantumbunny
2012-11-05 08:59:34 AM  
2 votes:

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
Teufelaffe [TotalFark]
2012-11-05 11:33:50 AM  
1 vote:
DontMakeMeComeBackThere
2012-11-05 10:37:01 AM  
1 vote:

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?")
Skr
2012-11-05 09:52:04 AM  
1 vote:
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.
kroonermanblack
2012-11-05 09:40:16 AM  
1 vote:

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.
MagicHateball
2012-11-05 08:56:27 AM  
1 vote:
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
 
Displayed 11 of 11 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Redisplay/refresh voting results for Smartest or Funniest or Return to comments
This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

If you like these links, you'll love

TotalFark

More funny for your money.

learn more | sign up

Report
On Twitter

Report
Top Commented
Top Commented ▼
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.
Report