Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Twitter Starts Withholding Rather Than Deleting Copyright-Infringing Tweets

samzenpus posted about 2 years ago | from the for-our-eyes-only dept.

Piracy 39

SternisheFan writes "Twitter is now withholding tweets when people complain they contain or link to copyright-infringing material, rather than deleting them. The company's legal policy manager, Jeremy Kessel, said in a tweet on Saturday that the shift offers Twitter users 'more transparency' in the way the service processes copyright reports. This is because other users can now see what was removed and why, rather than just not being able to see the message. The copyright notices that Twitter receives can be seen on the Chilling Effects website, where the firm posts all such messages with personal details excised. Some call for messages to be axed because they contain a copyrighted image, while others note that certain tweets contain links to unlawful copies of games and other media on the web. Other types of censorship can also be seen on Twitter's Chilling Effects page, notably instances where certain messages had to be withheld in certain countries due to local laws regarding privacy or political freedom."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Friggin' legalese (2)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41883613)

Sooner or later we are all going to be kept hostage by what corporate lawyers etc. dictate us to do or not to do. Where are the days of the 90s internet ??

Re:Friggin' legalese (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41883959)

Its still there, alive and kicking. its just you have to go looking for it, its not avaiable to the 'click and droolers'.

Re:Friggin' legalese (1)

alexgieg (948359) | about 2 years ago | (#41884107)

Its still there, alive and kicking. its just you have to go looking for it, its not avaiable to the 'click and droolers'.

In four words: Usenet, IRC, Tor, Freenet.

Re:Friggin' legalese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41884347)

Don't forget The Pirate Bay. I use a combination of PeerBlock, Tor and Bittorrent to download anything I want for free and with no fear of being caught.

Re:Friggin' legalese (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888707)

You mean, a very low chance of being caught. Unless you are actually torrenting over TOR (rather than just using TOR to obtain the torrent files) in which case, if you are using significant bandwidth, please stop damaging TOR and consider other darknets better suited to file sharing.

Re:Friggin' legalese (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 2 years ago | (#41885837)

While i agree both are options, Usenet and IRC are both quite trackable, and Usenet is nothing like it used to be, due to censorship by most carriers.

You did leave out I2P however. It belongs with Tor and Freenet, 'our' future, for free expression on the network.

Re:Friggin' legalese (2)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 2 years ago | (#41883987)

Indeed - from an outsider's view the US seems to be entirely geared to generating money for lawyers. "Think life's unfair? Hey, just sue! Chances are we can scare your chosen victim with a very big number and a dollar sign, so they'll just give you some money! (And give us a lot more, and if they refuse you have to make up the difference."

It really is depressing, I've found myself wondering whether the smart move is to ensure I have no real assets, so if I am taken to court over something I can just laugh at them, go bankrupt and spend the rest of my life in prison for inability to pay a fine (OK, there are downsides to prison, but you can teach yourself a lot of theoretical physics as long as you have a crayon and paper).

Being too poor to sue does seem to be the only deterrent.

Re:Friggin' legalese (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41885265)

Being too poor to sue does seem to be the only deterrent.

Don't stay poor. Use only cash so nobody will ever know how much money you have ($1 or $1m...)

Re:Friggin' legalese (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41884189)

Where are the days of the 90s internet ??

They're in the 1990's. Perhaps you can telnet yourself back there.

So? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41883639)

while others note that certain tweets contain links to unlawful copies of games and other media on the web

OH NO, they're taking my pirated game links off twitter, guess I'll have to go back to using Google.

Good Move (5, Informative)

Compaqt (1758360) | about 2 years ago | (#41883687)

For those who can't be bothered to even read the summary, this is not more censorship, it can actually be seen as less.

Instead of deleting the tweet whole, they'll be logging the deletions at Chilling Effects.

Re:Good Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41883813)

Yay! Less gratituous "gratis juegos"!

Re:Good Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41883923)

Even the title gives it away, so anybody who complains hasn't even read *that*.

Re:Good Move (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about 2 years ago | (#41884099)

That was not my point. I clicked my way through the Chilling Effects site; by far the majority of takedown notices are directly related to copyright. So the place ( the internet ) we had for ourselves, as a true nearly-free place, is gone -- and ruled by lawyers and legalese. THAT is my point.

Re:Good Move (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41884601)

So the place ( the internet ) we had for ourselves, as a true nearly-free place, is gone -- and ruled by lawyers and legalese. THAT is my point.

And you expected it to last forever?

No, no, I want you to seriously think about this before you answer. You really, honestly believed that a free and open no-rules society would never be invaded by undesirables taking advantage of that nature, that a society which requires a very large financial investment to continue its existence (infrastructure, international routing, uptime, speed advancements, etc) would be free of any intervention from the only entities with the finances to support such functionality, and that if these meanies DID start coming by, an entirely passive attitude of "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU I DON'T CARE ABOUT YOUR LAWS LA LA LA" was really a suitable defense?

Re:Good Move (2)

Sarten-X (1102295) | about 2 years ago | (#41885527)

So the place ( the internet ) we had for ourselves, as a true nearly-free place, is gone -- and ruled by lawyers and legalese. THAT is my point.

The Internet is not a place, and never was. It is, and always has been, a network of computing devices. When those devices are operated by an entity that is subject to a nation's laws, they are required to comply with those laws, and this has always been the case.

While the culture of Internet users has long enjoyed its "Wild West" anarchy, the eventual expansion of civilization and enforcement will not be stopped, because it comes with the order and security that people like so much.

Someday, people will make movies about the Internet as we now make westerns - where the faceless vigilante Anonymous fights against the ever-advancing government, and the pirate trades his wares in the smoky BBS and BitTorrent, while the evil baron Industry forces people to work in the data mines under the oppression of DRM slavery. Our hero, the lone onion router, drifts through the town, redirecting users' traffic and setting up an underground wealth redistribution so they can briefly live free from Industry's influence, and in doing so he wins the heart of the naive and innocent User.

Re:Good Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889593)

Someday, people will make movies about the Internet as we now make westerns

As long as I get a movie-length feature of Summer Glau typing on a keyboard, you can take all my money.

Re:Good Move (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#41890331)

While the culture of Internet users has long enjoyed its "Wild West" anarchy, the eventual expansion of civilization and enforcement will not be stopped, because it comes with the order and security that people like so much.

If by "the eventual expansion of civilization and enforcement" you mean 'rules and regulations put into place at the behest of monied interests.

The GP has a point. We used to have the internet to ourselves, until the copyright and trademark owners decided they didn't like how things looked, so they bribed^w lobbied until they got the rules they wanted.

I mean, have you seen the current batch of SOPA/PIPA/ACTA copyright laws being pushed?
When Big Business discovered that the DMCA meant they had to spend time and effort going through the legal system,
they collectively said to themselves "Well, that won't do! We need to figure out a way to automate the enforcement! And fuck fair use!"

If that's what you call "the eventual expansion of civilization," then I don't want it.

Re:Good Move (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#41884125)

It's still a blockage that desperately needs to be cleared or circumvented. The message needs to be sent to the whole world that all censorship of any kind will not be tolerated, no matter who feels offended.

Re:Good Move (2)

jonadab (583620) | about 2 years ago | (#41885059)

> this is not more censorship, it can actually be seen as less.

The amount of censorship that is actually happening is the same. The difference is, now it's easier for people to find out that it is happening, and (at least in general terms) why.

So while it's not less censorship as such, it is an improvement.

Re:Good Move (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41889213)

Maybe someone can shut down Chilling Effects Clearinghouse. After all, the takedown reasons are valid, logging the takedowns at Chilling Effects is just the temper tantrum for having to obey copyright law.

Google started that shit, didn't they? So Twitter is just a we'll do it too entity.

FUCK YES POWER IS BACK MOTHERFUCKERS (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41883903)

holy shit a week without power and heat is some fucking bullshit! now i can get back to work and plan a way to leave this shit hole country before it goes full third world on my ass!

Re:FUCK YES POWER IS BACK MOTHERFUCKERS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41886309)

I suggest killing yourself and all your neighbors. Seriously, if you can't cope with a little power lose you are worthless as a human being and should kill yourself. Leave a note blaming the media.

Re:FUCK YES POWER IS BACK MOTHERFUCKERS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41888535)

At least when the power goes out in Baghdad it's not 35 degrees outside...

But Not Threats (1)

sycodon (149926) | about 2 years ago | (#41884121)

But they don't seem to care about explicit threats to presidential candidate's lives, nor incitements to riot either.

How can a tweet infringe copyright? (1)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#41884573)

No work less than 150 characters should be able to receive copyright in the first place.

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41884755)

You don't have to quote an entire work to infringe copyright. Also, linking an pirated work will earn you a takedown notice.

And yes, I know that a brief quote is often considered "fair use". But that's not an official rule, just a popular rule-of-thumb.

(And we're back on the "I know the law as well as any fucking lawyer" trope.)

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#41884847)

That was my first thought! But apparently, they're talking about LINKING TO copyright-violating material. Sigh. That's like arresting someone for saying "Hey, there's a house cooking meth on 5th street." Or more accurately, it's like having the library detain someone and cover their mouth because they said that in the library, and saying that if they don't, the library will be shut down and all employees arrested.

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41885063)

More like somebody saying: oh you want some meth? Go to this house on 5th street. Ask for Bubba.

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (1)

s0nicfreak (615390) | about 2 years ago | (#41885301)

So you assume. There are plenty of anti-piracy idiots that post copyright-violating links in the hopes that it will be noticed and therefore removed from the internet. Just as someone may tell the cops someone is making meth on 5th street because they don't want a meth lab in their neighborhood.

Either way, the point is the same. The person is just telling you that there is something illegal. Whither or not you choose to break the law with that information is up to you, not the person that told you. Holding the person that posted the link accountable in any way is just shooting the messenger. And Twitter should not be held responsible for monitoring the messengers.

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41885425)

Why not? There are plenty of Haiku (or other short poetry) that have artistic merit.

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41886341)

Unlike, say, your face. Which has no merit at all and should be hidden from the world, except for short occasions when it can be brought out and used to scare "the enemy".

Re:How can a tweet infringe copyright? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41890231)

The quality of Slashdot comments sure has gone down in the last decade.

Chilling Effects website (0)

Jaec (1089129) | about 2 years ago | (#41884609)

Why is Chilling Effects website so ugly?

Re:Chilling Effects website (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41886789)

Because someone built it by hand in 2001. I hear they are planning a redesign, why not send them some positive suggestions?

Re:Chilling Effects website (1)

Jaec (1089129) | about 2 years ago | (#41890979)

That was my point. It looks outdated. I don't know if the owners doesnt have the resources to redesing it.

Copyright? (1)

fm6 (162816) | about 2 years ago | (#41884693)

When you go to ChillingEffects, the lead post is about suppressing anti-Semitic tweets originating in France.

Twitter is for idiots. That's all you need to know (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#41885311)

This whole thing is a problem that doesn't exist for
people who value their time and do not waste it
on crap like Twitter.

Bye now, gotta go, time is valuable.

only 38 comments after one day (1)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | about 2 years ago | (#41892273)

It's interesting, that where there's good news we don't want to comment on that.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?