Comments on: Twitter and the DMCA: A Fine Mess http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/ Content Theft, Plagiarism, Copyright Infringement Sat, 20 Mar 2010 01:12:29 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=abc hourly 1 By: Libel in 140 Characters or Less « mcmilkergrouphttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-127546 Libel in 140 Characters or Less « mcmilkergroup Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:26:47 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-127546 [...] found info on copyright infringement issues having to do with background images on the aptly named Plagiarism Today site (nice find). But I didn’t find anything about [...] [...] found info on copyright infringement issues having to do with background images on the aptly named Plagiarism Today site (nice find). But I didn’t find anything about [...]

]]> By: ipwars.com » Blog Archive » Copyright infringement and Twitterhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-125458 ipwars.com » Blog Archive » Copyright infringement and Twitter Thu, 07 May 2009 09:51:31 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-125458 [...] Today tries to unravel how Twitter (attempts to) deal with claims that material posted infringes [...] [...] Today tries to unravel how Twitter (attempts to) deal with claims that material posted infringes [...]

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-129177 Jonathan Bailey Tue, 05 May 2009 02:08:01 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-129177 Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.<br><br>It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work. Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.

It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-129176 Jonathan Bailey Tue, 05 May 2009 01:43:42 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-129176 I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.<br><br>The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.<br><br>If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period. I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.

The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.

If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period.

]]> By: fscorpio (Freddy Sarabia)http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-125435 fscorpio (Freddy Sarabia) Mon, 04 May 2009 23:12:58 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-125435 RT <a rel="nofollow" href="http://twitter.com/CopyrightLaw">@CopyrightLaw</a>: “Twitter and the DMCA: A Fine Mess” http://tinyurl.com/cyw2yb RT @CopyrightLaw: “Twitter and the DMCA: A Fine Mess” http://tinyurl.com/cyw2yb

]]> By: CopyrightLaw (CopyrightLaw)http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-125441 CopyrightLaw (CopyrightLaw) Mon, 04 May 2009 22:31:18 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-125441 “Twitter and the DMCA: A Fine Mess” http://tinyurl.com/cyw2yb “Twitter and the DMCA: A Fine Mess” http://tinyurl.com/cyw2yb

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-128113 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 May 2009 22:08:01 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-128113 Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.<br><br>It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work. Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.

It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-128112 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 May 2009 21:43:42 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-128112 I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.<br><br>The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.<br><br>If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period. I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.

The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.

If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-125440 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 May 2009 21:08:01 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-125440 Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.<br><br>It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work. Every artist has to choose their own copyright license and the terms that they want to share their works under. I'm not a believer in the notion that putting your work on the Web instantly sacrifices all of your rights to it, but I do understand that many artists have copyleft licensing, including this site, and that is their right.

It is worth noting though that almost all of the infringement I've seen on Twitter comes without any attribution, thus putting it in violation of any Creative Commons License (save CC0). It is understandable why artists, even though that want to allow copying of their work, may be concerned about this unattributed and, in many cases, plagiarized use of their work.

]]> By: Jonathan Baileyhttp://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2009/04/28/twitter-and-the-dmca-a-fine-mess/comment-page-1/#comment-125436 Jonathan Bailey Mon, 04 May 2009 20:43:42 +0000 http://www.plagiarismtoday.com/?p=3349#comment-125436 I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.<br><br>The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.<br><br>If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period. I grant that I didn't call them. When I do these analysis I approach it from the perspective of someone who is inexperienced with the DMCA and is trying to find the information on their own.

The DMCA requires hosts to make certain kinds of information publicly both on their sites and the USCO's site. The problem with Twitter isn't that they didn't provide the information, but that it is highly conflicting. Could a call have straightened it out? Possibly. But the DMCA was written to make that unnecessary for a lot of reasons.

If you view the analysis as incomplete, that's you're decision. But the law is clear on this matter There is no reason an issue like this should ever exist. Period.

]]>