Federal judge rules embedding Tweets violates copyright law - Sensationalist Headlines

[quote]Courts have long held that copyright liability rests with the entity that hosts the infringing content—not someone who simply links to it. The linker generally has no idea that it’s infringing, and isn’t ultimately in control of what content the server will provide when a browser contacts it. This “server test,” originally from a 2007 Ninth Circuit case called Perfect 10 v. Amazon, provides a clear and easy-to-administer rule. It has been a foundation of the modern Internet. Judge Katherine Forrest rejected the Ninth Circuit’s server test, based in part on a surprising approach to the process of embedding. The opinion describes the simple process of embedding a tweet or image—something done every day by millions of ordinary Internet users—as if it were a highly technical process done by “coders.” That process, she concluded, put publishers, not servers, in the drivers’ seat: [W]hen defendants caused the embedded Tweets to appear on their websites, their actions violated plaintiff’s exclusive display right; the fact that the image was hosted on a server owned and operated by an unrelated third party (Twitter) does not shield them from this result.[/quote] [quote]EFF notes that the ruling could apply to any inline embedded content, and not just tweets. As such, it could cause chaos, as the 2007 ruling "has been a foundation of the modern internet," EFF's Daniel Nazer wrote. There may be an appeal, however, which could see the ruling overturned. The EFF, for one hopes that the new judgement doesn't stand. "If it did, it would threaten the ubiquitous practice of in-line linking that benefits millions of Internet users every day," wrote Nazer.[/quote] There's still potential for appeal, and there's also the importance of actual enforcement. Pretty fucking stupid though as so much of the web is dependent on the legality of hotlinking. [url]https://www.engadget.com/2018/02/16/tweet-embed-copyright-violation-judge-ruling/[/url] [url]https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/02/federal-judge-says-embedding-tweet-can-be-copyright-infringement[/url] Edit: To be clear, this doesn't make embedding inherently illegal. If you embedded a tweet with copyrighted content, you could be held responsible for illegal display of copyrighted content

[media]https://twitter.com/dril/status/922321981[/media]

this doesn't make any fucking sense. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] [QUOTE=Pw0nageXD;53136899] Edit: To be clear, this doesn't make embedding inherently illegal. If you embedded a tweet with copyrighted content, you could be held responsible for illegal display of copyrighted content[/QUOTE] this makes even less sense, why go for the person who embedded the tweet and not whoever posted the copyrighted content?

[QUOTE=Plaster;53136970]this doesn't make any fucking sense. [editline]16th February 2018[/editline] this makes even less sense, why go for the person who embedded the tweet and not whoever posted the copyrighted content?[/QUOTE] That's how it's been since a case in 2007. The judge here treated embedding as if it was some complex process that meant there was clear intent

[video]http://twitter.com/curly_qtip/status/964574720682287106[/video] come and sue me fuckheads

[QUOTE=Kiwi;53136998]I'm gonna have to delete the thread now before we get another DMCA.[/QUOTE] Don't be a pussy

Are we talking about copyrighted content being tweeted by someone who doesn't own it and then the embedder violating that as well, or is the copyrighted content the tweet itself?

[QUOTE=Kiwi;53136998]I'm gonna have to delete the thread now before we get another DMCA.[/QUOTE] Did you just fucking quote his embedded tweet? J!nx I will be your lawyer for the upcoming court case. We can get him demodded for this, he won't profit from the wok of others.

I tweeted to trump and got banned. Apparently, it's not cool to call him President Turnip

[QUOTE=01271;53137034]Did you just fucking quote his embedded tweet? J!nx I will be your lawyer for the upcoming court case. We can get him demodded for this, he won't profit from the wok of others.[/QUOTE] [video=youtube_share;llZCIgo5fx0]http://youtu.be/llZCIgo5fx0[/video]

[QUOTE=Splarg!;53137006]Are we talking about copyrighted content being tweeted by someone who doesn't own it and then the embedder violating that as well, or is the copyrighted content the tweet itself?[/QUOTE] while I'm not sure this is directly related, I recall a huge ruckus recently over buzzfeed using other people's tweets as the actual content of articles without the users' permission (under protection of 'you posted it publicly so we can share it'), profiting off the tweets' existence via their own ad revenue, in many cases ending up inadvertantly misrepresenting opinions and sending a legion of shitters to harass the user So while doing shit like quoting tweets on this page is harmless, it grants power for the owner to request it be taken down. Furthermore, if its existence is being used for profits, this could mean trashy content recyclers will require a tweeter's permission to put their shit on a pedestal, else they can be sued for damages like for as much as we make fun of news stations for being vultures and posting generic "I'm sorry for your loss :( Can we use this video btw" comments left on youtube/facebook videos of newsworthy stuff, [i]at least they legally have to ask[/i].

We seriously need to do something about judges and lawmakers legislating something they don't understand. But then, lawmakers would have to do something about it.

[QUOTE=spazthemax;53137152]We seriously need to do something about judges and lawmakers legislating something they don't understand. But then, lawmakers would have to do something about it.[/QUOTE] Neat, just today I had to do a write-up for a client to take to lawmakers to explain how some provisions in a draft are stupid. Maybe judges should have some sort of impartial, professional directory of people they can call on for information? I guess the impartial part would be nearly impossible to prove. I mean, judges cannot possibly be experts on everything but surely there is a minimum amount of knowledge you need before defining precedent for something.

[media]https://twitter.com/atomic_sans/status/964656024228515840[/media]

Jesus christ soon enough you won't be able to take a shit in public without a k9 unit gnawing your dick in search for sexism and bombs.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been a complete joke. This is just another nail in the coffin why I think all of those judges should be thrown out and replaced. EDIT: Nevermind. Misread it. It's a New York federal court that made the ruling.

so @SimpsonsQOTD would get this site litigated? [media]https://twitter.com/SimpsonsQOTD/status/964508277106200576[/media]

[QUOTE=Kiwi;53136998]I'm gonna have to delete the thread now before we get another DMCA.[/QUOTE] If ya smell what the :wok: is cookin’

welp, there goes 99.8% of lmao threads.

[QUOTE=Gamerman12;53145001]welp, there goes 99.8% of lmao threads.[/QUOTE] Just need to work on removing the other 0.2% of lmao threads. [editline]20th February 2018[/editline] Serious discussion only.