4 ms·
Yikes - this is bad. Criminalizing embeds (and hyperlinks, it sounds like?) is a swing at the jugular for the Internet.
by k_sh 9y ago
Yikes - this is bad. Criminalizing embeds (and hyperlinks, it sounds like?) is a swing at the jugular for the Internet.
- manfredo 9y agoPerhaps there's a difference in that embeds can display the content without directing the viewer to page. Consider: * Embedding a copyrighted image. * Linking to the original page that hosts said image. In the latter case the copyright holder would still monetize of of, say, ads hosted on their website. Whereas in the former the copyrighted work would likely be displayed without the chance for the copyright holder to monitize. I'm more surprised that Twitter doesn't have a clause where all users waive copyright to any posted on their website. Otherwise essentially all social media platforms would constantly be infringing. I upload my profile pic to Facebook, I can't turn around and sue them for the fact that it's displaying this image to all other Facebook users viewing my profile.
- quickthrower2 9y agoThePirateBay is an example that muddies the distinction.
- kd0amg 9y agoIn the latter case the copyright holder would still monetize of of, say, ads hosted on their website. I'd have an easier time with this reasoning if I saw more legal argument directly addressing why "exclusive right to their respective writings" includes the right to require readers to also see something else at the same time as they view the writings.
- Joeri 9y agoThe social media terms of service typically include granting a global sublicensable royalty-free license to all copyrighted content you upload.
- ruytlm 9y agoWhich is why it's surprising to see the photographer going after the publications; it makes more sense to go after the 'someone else' who tweeted the picture. I suspect that it's a case of targeting those who are more likely to be able to pay out in case of a win in the courts.
- zipwitch 9y agoWorse, it is teaching a generation (or more) that our justice system is stupid and broken. That in turn erodes ideas like rule of law that a essential to modern civilization.
- craftyguy 9y ago> Worse, it is teaching a generation (or more) that our justice system is stupid and broken Well, you wouldn't be wrong for coming to this conclusion (source: this ruling, and more!) > That in turn erodes ideas like rule of law that a essential to modern civilization. Not necessarily. Our implementation of this is essentially flawed, but that doesn't mean all possible implementations of rule of law are flawed as badly. I would hope that this would inspire change, but people are inherently against change so at the end of the day you are probably correct.
- helthanatos 9y agoThe only direction people really want to change in is socially. They focus all their attention on social issues and poverty and taxes. The actual laws don't want to be touched by anyone. We have very poor and contradictory laws and decisions with regards to new technology. The people in charge don't seem to understand the internet and internet-related rights.
- craftyguy 9y agoYep, which is why our implementation is flawed. It allows folks who have no knowledge of certain topics to make and enforce laws that pertain to those topics.
- ravenstine 9y agoI know the solution: Just remove government officials who use the word "cyber".
- thatcat 9y agoThere are unfortunately plenty of other ways to learn that lesson. On the up side it may encourage people to participate in distributed systems that are more resilient against arbitrary censorship.
- ryan-c 9y agoMy read of this is that embedding a tweet is not copyright infringement, rather the issue is that the tweet in question, was itself, infringing a work. This is still a bad ruling, of course.