undefined | Better HN

0 pointstoast03y ago0 comments

I mean, does Twitter want to be a party to a copyright lawsuit? If not, following legitimate looking DMCA notifications (and legitimate looking DMCA counter-notifications) and responding to suponeas as necessary gets you an affirmative defense for copyright infringement.

You may not like it, but having a bot do that probably saves a lot of legal hassle.

0 comments

edgyquant3y ago

Content providers cannot be held liable for user generated content under section 230. Try again.

woodruffw3y ago

Hm? Intellectual property is explicitly carved out of 230, and even if it wasn’t: it isn’t user generated. Content providers are regularly found liable for infringement on their platforms, especially when the plaintiff can demonstrate willful negligence (which in this case would include discontinuing a seemingly effective scanning system.)

toast0OP3y ago

§230(e)(2) says

> (2) No effect on intellectual property law

> Nothing in this section shall be construed to limit or expand any law pertaining to intellectual property.

If section 230 from the CDA of 1996 provided immunity from copyright claims, there would be no reason to include procedural requirements for processing claims in the DMCA of 1998.

threeseed3y ago

Twitter is a global company.

Many jurisdictions take an even harsher line when it comes to being complicit in intellectual property abuse. We saw this famously with The Pirate Bay, Napster etc.

fatneckbeardz3y ago

youtube literally been sued over this exact issue multiple times.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse