Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Piracy Censorship Twitter Your Rights Online

Twitter Starts Withholding Rather Than Deleting Copyright-Infringing Tweets 39

Posted by samzenpus
from the for-our-eyes-only dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Twitter Starts Withholding Rather Than Deleting Copyright-Infringing Tweets

Comments Filter:
  • 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 ??
    • by nurb432 (527695)

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

      • by alexgieg (948359)

        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.

        • by nurb432 (527695)

          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.

    • 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
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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: (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Where are the days of the 90s internet ??

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

  • Good Move (Score:5, Informative)

    by Compaqt (1758360) on Monday November 05, 2012 @01:09PM (#41883687) Homepage

    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.

    • 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.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        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

      • by Sarten-X (1102295)

        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 mak

        • by TubeSteak (669689)

          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

    • 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.

    • by jonadab (583620)
      > 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.
  • But they don't seem to care about explicit threats to presidential candidate's lives, nor incitements to riot either.

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

    • by fm6 (162816)

      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.)

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

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

"Free markets select for winning solutions." -- Eric S. Raymond

Working...