3 ms·

Copyright issues don't go away if you capture via browser.

by jonknee 10y ago

homero 10y ago
Then do it anonymously
JoshTriplett 10y ago
Copyright belongs to the person tweeting, not to Twitter (they just get a license from the person tweeting). And fair use specifically mentions "criticism, comment, news reporting, [...] scholarship, or research", several of which apply to reporting on deleted tweets from prominent public figures. This isn't a copyright issue at all; it's exclusively a ToS issue. Twitter can choose to prevent someone from using their API. They'd have a harder time forcing the takedown of the existing content.
- jonknee 10y ago
  Yes, and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? I would argue it is a copyright issue because by deleting content a user is saying they don't want anyone to access it. Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? As a user I think this is the right tack to take. There is no possible advantage for Twitter to have sites that make the delete feature not really work.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? Then? No, this is about getting it through the API while it's still up.
    - jonknee 10y ago
      Obviously, but with the restriction you also delete it when it's no longer in the API. It would be ridiculous if Twitter helped developers to embarrass/blackmail their users.
      - cyphar 10y ago
        If it is stored for purposes of commentary or news reporting, then it would fall under fair use and neither Twitter nor the original author have any power to stop you from republishing the tweets as long as it is considered fair use.
      - Dylan16807 10y ago
        You can't undo saying something to a hundred thousand people. You can demand everyone forget, but it won't work.
        edoceo 10y ago
        Big Brother, 1984
  - roywiggins 10y ago
    When someone's an verified user, they're a public figure and have an outsize impact on the Twitter discourse (they tend to have a lot of followers). The things they say are inherently newsworthy. If the archiving is done for the purpose of scholarship or commentary it sounds like a compelling argument for it being fair use.
    - thwarted 10y ago
      I think that one of the things that an account should have to trade in for being a Verified Account is the ability to delete tweets. Being a public figure and having the notoriety that is implicit in having a Verified Account, the account should have to stand by what it tweets, or at least not be able to modify the public record and break references to its content.
      - exolymph 10y ago
        I like this idea, but I think a big function of the checkmark is reassuring people that an account belong to who it says it belongs to. For example, @realDenaldTrump is not verified (even though people still fall for it). That said, Twitter administers the checkmark in puzzling and thoroughly non-transparent ways.
        thwarted 10y ago
        I think a big function of the checkmark is reassuring people that an account belong to who it says it belongs to That is in fact the only reason Verified Accounts exist, and is the reason that non-celebrities or people otherwise lacking notoriety can not get Verified Accounts. It's not worth Twitter's effort to make my account, or any random user, Verified, it seems. But as Twitter's role continues to expand in the public sphere, it is really the public who gives out Verified Accounts (through making someone famous), and the public should have requirements, such as a certain level of consistency, from the accounts it gives the power/influence of the Verified Account to.
  - wpietri 10y ago
    Copyright is the right we give to content creators so that they can financially benefit from their work. It is not a generic "I control everything I have ever said" power. In particular, "fair use" specifically doesn't require people to get permission from a copyright holder: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-u... Discussing the tweets of public figures is clearly "commentary and criticism", which would give things like PostGhost "substantial non-infringing use" (which I believe is the relevant legal threshold).
  - thaumasiotes 10y ago
    > and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? How could this possibly be relevant? Copyright won't give them any grounds to stop you from saying "he's trying to walk it back now, but he said <embarrassing statement> earlier".
- simbalion 10y ago
  It's a 1st amendment issue. If someone says something in a public forum what they said becomes public domain.

by jonknee 10y ago

Then do it anonymously

Copyright belongs to the person tweeting, not to Twitter (they just get a license from the person tweeting). And fair use specifically mentions "criticism, comment, news reporting, [...] scholarship, or research", several of which apply to reporting on deleted tweets from prominent public figures. This isn't a copyright issue at all; it's exclusively a ToS issue. Twitter can choose to prevent someone from using their API. They'd have a harder time forcing the takedown of the existing content.

jonknee 10y ago
Yes, and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? I would argue it is a copyright issue because by deleting content a user is saying they don't want anyone to access it. Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? As a user I think this is the right tack to take. There is no possible advantage for Twitter to have sites that make the delete feature not really work.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > Why would Twitter then want to turn around and allow access to it through an API? Then? No, this is about getting it through the API while it's still up.
  - jonknee 10y ago
    Obviously, but with the restriction you also delete it when it's no longer in the API. It would be ridiculous if Twitter helped developers to embarrass/blackmail their users.
    - cyphar 10y ago
      If it is stored for purposes of commentary or news reporting, then it would fall under fair use and neither Twitter nor the original author have any power to stop you from republishing the tweets as long as it is considered fair use.
    - Dylan16807 10y ago
      You can't undo saying something to a hundred thousand people. You can demand everyone forget, but it won't work.
      - edoceo 10y ago
        Big Brother, 1984
- roywiggins 10y ago
  When someone's an verified user, they're a public figure and have an outsize impact on the Twitter discourse (they tend to have a lot of followers). The things they say are inherently newsworthy. If the archiving is done for the purpose of scholarship or commentary it sounds like a compelling argument for it being fair use.
  - thwarted 10y ago
    I think that one of the things that an account should have to trade in for being a Verified Account is the ability to delete tweets. Being a public figure and having the notoriety that is implicit in having a Verified Account, the account should have to stand by what it tweets, or at least not be able to modify the public record and break references to its content.
    - exolymph 10y ago
      I like this idea, but I think a big function of the checkmark is reassuring people that an account belong to who it says it belongs to. For example, @realDenaldTrump is not verified (even though people still fall for it). That said, Twitter administers the checkmark in puzzling and thoroughly non-transparent ways.
      - thwarted 10y ago
        I think a big function of the checkmark is reassuring people that an account belong to who it says it belongs to That is in fact the only reason Verified Accounts exist, and is the reason that non-celebrities or people otherwise lacking notoriety can not get Verified Accounts. It's not worth Twitter's effort to make my account, or any random user, Verified, it seems. But as Twitter's role continues to expand in the public sphere, it is really the public who gives out Verified Accounts (through making someone famous), and the public should have requirements, such as a certain level of consistency, from the accounts it gives the power/influence of the Verified Account to.
- wpietri 10y ago
  Copyright is the right we give to content creators so that they can financially benefit from their work. It is not a generic "I control everything I have ever said" power. In particular, "fair use" specifically doesn't require people to get permission from a copyright holder: http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/ http://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-u... Discussing the tweets of public figures is clearly "commentary and criticism", which would give things like PostGhost "substantial non-infringing use" (which I believe is the relevant legal threshold).
- thaumasiotes 10y ago
  > and what do you think of the person who deleted a tweet will say about you using their copyright? How could this possibly be relevant? Copyright won't give them any grounds to stop you from saying "he's trying to walk it back now, but he said <embarrassing statement> earlier".
simbalion 10y ago
It's a 1st amendment issue. If someone says something in a public forum what they said becomes public domain.