I don't know who to root for / against here
Fuck twitter, but they have to win.
Rulings that hold platforms accountable for user-generated content completely fuck any free speech left on the internet. There are already mechanisms for them to get infringing content removed, and suing the platform isn't it.
Yeah, setting a precedent is the biggest danger here. If it's viable to sue Twitter, then it's viable to go after other social media. Including fediverse hosts.
Unless the hosts are hosted in Moldova or Russia
In order to be DMCA compliant and remain protected under S230 you need to respond to DMCA notices. If Steiger had been doing that then they’re not liable, full stop.
However I have a tinfoil hat theory: as part of his ranking of Twitter, musk has sacked the folks responsible for responding to takedowns, and either a bunch of them went unanswered. That, or the music industry smells blood in the water and wants to invalidate the DMCA in their own favor for any host that isn’t policing on their own (remember, with DMCA is it the sole responsibility of the rights holder to initiate the takedown process. Anyone going above and beyond that is doing it on their own). If Twitter loses then it puts safe harbor on shaky grounds.
I see the music industry as the "greater evil" here, but I think I'm rooting for both sides to spend a bunch of money (by normal person standards, it'll probably be a drop in the bucket for them) on legal fees before the inevitable settlement requiring Twitter to create a Content ID-esque system for videos.
I see the music industry as the “greater evil” here
oh, gosh, I just don't know... I'm so ambivalent...
yes, but who do i want to lose more...
ugh, so torn...
cool so elon musk, one of the worst people in the world, going up against the organizations responsible for twitch streamers having to mute audio when licensed songs play in video games they're streaming.
so like 2 of the worst organizations in the world. i hope they both lose.
I do want twitter to get hurt, but not like this if it can cascade down to smaller social media like Lemmy and Mastodon.
All laws restricting user generated content in internet will hurt users and small platforms the most. Big platforms can afford to deal with it, but the cost is paid by users and content creators again
The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.
To me this is like watching a rat and a cockroach fight. You hate em both, and you want neither to win, but you just hope that the winner will be hurt really badly.
Apparently they can’t even be bothered to pay their rent so this is not a particular shock.
It’s hard to believe that so many things are going so sideways that we’re starting to root for the likes of Disney and the major record labels.
It's funny how he keeps telling people to get back to the office and "work from home bad" then doesn't pay the rent and loses the offices. I think there's been 3 or 4 offices now that they've been kicked out of.
Does make for some concern. Unlike Musk/Twitter most federated instance wouldn't be able to fund a legal dispute or ignore warnings.
Upside being some instances will be hosted in more legally indifferent countries and the game of whack-a-mole as more instances pop up. It'll be closer to their attempts fighting piracy sites than other social media, I imagine.
IANAL, but I did spend a few years handling DMCA/Trademark takedown requests for an IaaS provider.
The answer is 'Yeah, probably, but', in most cases. If your instance is actively sharing copyrighted media, say, a stolen photo, and you get a DMCA and you're in a jurisdiction where the DMCA applies (which is, of course, a US law and not some global copyright cartel) you probably are going to have to comply and remove the content.
If it's just a link to content, say an embedded youtube video, you likely don't need to comply since embedded content isn't hosted on your server and thus isn't something you can 'remove', but that's a situation where shit gets murkier.
TLDR; it's complicated but if the URL for the claimed infringing material is hosted by you and you get a notice you probably have to take action to remove the content in the URL.
"I am not a lawyer"
One of the more amusing acronyms out there.
It means “I am not a lawyer.” Just a general disclaimer that I did legal-adjacent work with a lawyer who guided policy, but I’m not one and you shouldn’t just consider this globally good legal advice.
Yeah I'm guessing as the need for moderation of content grows as user activity on a server grows, server operators have the same growing responcibility for DMCA takedowns as well.
An email to Twitter’s press account requesting comment returned an autoreply with a poop emoji.
While hilarious, this simple statement in a legal filing does so much to underscore how insecure, weak and petty Musk (and probably all billionaires) really are.
Probably doesn't help their legal case at all, either!
A judge is pretty unlikely to send an email to the public pr address of a company about an ongoing matter.
Yeah, I’m really tired of reading this line in every news article about Twitter I read. They should have quietly disabled that auto reply months ago so the line would become “Twitter did not respond for comment” like every other company with bad press. That’s going to look terrible to a judge.
I think that's the reporter talking, not the lawyer.
I have no idea how Musk has managed to keep Twitter operational for so long, is he actually a genius? The answer is no. No he isn't.
Shows how powerful inertia can be. Momentum keeps things shambling along even as critical parts fly off.
Ha, fuck Elon.
So damn glad i changed my mind about buying a Tesla 3 series when they were first taking down payment for orders.
I hadn't realized what a kooky POS that is the Musk.
let them fight
Cartels gonna cartel.
So, I've never used Twitter... They had music? I thought it was just short text comments and the occasional picture?
I think this is in reference to the type of drama more associated with YouTube, wherein an audio or video clip posted substantially contains copyrighted material in a way not covered by fair use.
I haven't myself used Twitter since 2010 so I may be mistaken.
Or it is covered by fair use and the music companies don't care and think they can assert their copyright anyways.
Elon tanking “the public square” on purpose = no more criticism of the oligarch takeover of America.
How will we know what they’re doing if they control the media, the internet, etc
Why do you think the Saudis got in on the deal? They wanted Elon to tank it because the Middle East is afraid of another Arab Spring.
This is what capital does when it feels threatened. It’s not a dog that can be trained, it’s a wild animal that will hunt and kill. Quite literally if necessary.
We should never have let anyone on this planet acquire enough wealth to rival smaller nation states. They’re unelected kings, and they sure as shit fancy themselves that way.
Even Google, for all it's might, had to bend over backwards to media companies and create ContentID. And Big G had smart people at the helm, with lawyers that actually got paid (and well).
Muskolini will be in a world of pain if he doesn't settle quickly. The legal framework involving copyright in the US was bought wholesale by the media cartels (Especially the Mouse), all to preserve their interests and it's bee working well for them so far.
Which, to be fair, is absolute bullshit. The copyright system is borderline archaic and should be ripped apart and rebuilt. I'm talking government mandated trade union ownership of media rights, making exclusive licensing illegal, dramatically reducing the timeline to public domain, allowing commercial use of copyrighted material without copyright holders permission for small dollar amount operations, etc.
The system being bought by Disney and the media giants is bullshit and I'm not sure I'd be rooting for the media in this lawsuit.
Oh, I agree with you in all points, but unfortunately, right now money talks and I don't see it changing, unless we take those fat bastards in $20,000 suits and slowly roast them over the fire.
My position in this kerfuffle is wishing both sides to destroy each other, then maybe we'll have a chance of improving things a bit. But realistically, even if the studios get bruised by it, they'll still win by a landslide and Twitter will crushed under a billion dollar fine, which will only add to the 1.3 gigadollars they'll have to pay to the banks latter this year. This would basically be the end of the site.
As someone thinks the copyright industry is the reason we don't see as many diverse artists anymore (mainly because they killed the mixtape industry). It feels weird for me to be on their side.
Yeah.
Twitter knows full well that music is leaked, launched, and streamed by billions of people every day on its platform. No longer can it hide behind the DMCA and refuse to pay songwriters and music publishers.
It's going take more than just saying that to convince me that Twitter violated their safe harbor. The music industry is kind of known for these lawsuits. I think they are basically saying pay us a fee or we'll sue. Even if they ultimately lose the cost of defense for Twitter is probably more than whatever fee they have in mind.
Does this basically come down to "Twitter doesn't want to spend the compute to fingerprint media uploads?"
I know that's been a massive cost sink for YouTube with their Content ID technology, and I don't imagine Elbow is in a hurry to burn even more money at the moment.
May this case be long and acrimonious on both sides!
I cannot believe this guy still has not rehired his press team and is still just using a poop emoji for all press emails.
Twitter vs Music Publishers?
I hope everyone involved loses.
Boy this isn't their year. Shocking with someone so brilliant at the helm. /s in case that was too subtle.
Wow, Musky can't catch a break! GOOD!
Wonder if Twitter will eventually vanish...
thanks for using Leebra!
go to feed...
If only there was a way they could both lose
save