4 ms·
The DMCA is broad enough that posting a link may be considered "aiding" copyright infringement (that's a stretch, but since they hold the weapons, your shields
by eksith 14y ago
The DMCA is broad enough that posting a link may be considered "aiding" copyright infringement (that's a stretch, but since they hold the weapons, your shields need to be stronger). If all you do is post links to sites, then you have a legitimate claim that all you're doing is providing examples (and this is covered under fair use).
But if you do intend on fighting it calling it BS, your alternative is to file a counter-claim. Going against BS takes effort, as they say.
- ohashi 14y agoSo the text was along the lines of 'I need a clone of website.com <actual_link_to_job>' Twitter turned the text website.com into a link. The intent of the tweet is to communicate what someone is looking to hire for and a link to the job posting. Fighting BS takes effort, I am wondering what sort of effort/risk? Has anyone done it before and can share their experience?
- alexholehouse 14y agoDisclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Not even once. If I remember correctly (from reading about this, not experiencing it!), if you counter-claim they will either > drop it > sue you (must occur within 2 weeks of the counter claim) I have no idea about how this would proceed, but if they do sue you you'll need all the fun that entails, which may be a whole load of work. Frankly it does sound like complete BS, but the question is do you want to be the one to fight it, and could a good lawyer on their side make it stick? I feel like the law is still very much struggling with this whole internet thing, so if I were you I'd be apprehensive about assuming rational through would prevail.
- eksith 14y agoIt's entirely possible the claims were somehow automated or involved some drone in an office blindly filing DMCAs with links to the site (just a step above automated). A counter-claim is enough of a red flag that they'll stop to take notice of what exactly is going on and who they're filing against. If this is the case, they're more likely to drop it since pursuing Tweets isn't as effective as going after the actual site itself. Either way, if you do decide to fight it, you need some legal counseling unfortunately, hence the effort bit. If you prefix your Tweets with "Job Listing: " or just "Listing: ", that may deflect responsibility more in the future. Also on the Twitter description maybe an added disclaimer is warranted.