3 ms·
I guess my brain has been cooked by internet libertarianism but what's the basis of a C&D for proxying a website? Is the legal basis just copyright of the cont
by doublepg23 1mo ago
I guess my brain has been cooked by internet libertarianism but what's the basis of a C&D for proxying a website?
Is the legal basis just copyright of the contents?
- xmprt 1mo agoBigger "guns" diplomacy. They don't need any legal basis for a C&D. Just depends on whether you have enough money to fight it in court.
- john_strinlai 1mo agoi dont know the legal basis used, or the validity. i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it
- inigyou 1mo agoYou don't have to fight a C&D, you can ignore it. But they may sue you and you have to fight that. But they can also sue you without a C&D or even after you comply with one. The C&D itself has no effect, but it's the equivalent of a gangster pointing at his own eyeballs and then yours, "I'm watching you."
- john_strinlai 1mo agoyou've replied here several times, i understand your position on C&Ds. a C&D is reasonably understood as an intent to sue if you continue whatever they want you to cease. my comment can be read as "i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it (where "it" = ignoring their C&D and being sued)"
- cindyllm 1mo ago[dead]
- paxys 1mo agoWell yeah the copyright violation is pretty clear cut here.
- itintheory 1mo agoMy understanding is that copyright of what's posted is retained by the poster. The Nitter C&D was around a ToS violation for scraping.
- inigyou 1mo agoViolating ToS is legal, but so is sending a C&D for anything you like