Except that he at the same time demanded that people invent an entirely new dish by the end of the week, and now they are scrambling to try to figure it out. Already the DMCA auto-takedown bot is apparently broken and people are posting entire movies on Twitter. I would expect other peripheral systems to start breaking down as nobody is maintaining them even as other parts of the system are being changed.
I interpreted the GP's comment less as a moral claim ("the DMCA bot is good") and more as a claim that the DMCA bot's failure is a strong indicator of internal instability (given that it sits directly at the intersection between Twitter's profit interests and microservices architecture).
Put another way: being unable keep a little bot running, one that keeps an entire industry happy, doesn't bode well for other components of the service.
It seems self-evident that the bot was considered low priority, since it isn’t working anymore. But nobody is disputing that: they’re saying that the fact that it is low priority does not bode well.
If it was a prerequisite to land $100M ARR from all the media properties’ marketing budgets to advertise the multi-billion dollar pipelines of the movie and entertainment industry, that lil’ bot was the gate to $11,415 per hour of revenue at risk if its uptime failed to sufficiently please the attorneys and auditors from those customers.
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.
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.)
> 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.
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.
Well, Disney won’t care why their copyrighted material is publicly available, noone likes this sort of copyright, but if Elon wants to avoid huge fines he better (make someone) fix it ASAP.
