Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Says Your Tweets Belong To You
CWmike writes "Twitter has modified its terms of service to state unequivocally that messages posted belong to their authors and not to the company. 'Twitter is allowed to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" your tweets because that's what we do. However, they are your tweets and they belong to you,' wrote Twitter co-founder Biz Stone in a blog post Thursday announcing the modifications. Twitter is still hammering out a set of guidelines for developers on the proper use of the company's API. What do Twitterers think of the TOS changes? Barbara Krasnoff writes, ' Twitter announces new ToS. Tweeters shrug,' noting that some appreciated the company's transparency in contacting its users and pointing out the changes that were being made."
couldn't help myself!
Sounds like Twitter is trying to cover their butts.
"No officer lawman sir, That is not our terrorist message, and we don't have anything to do with it. All the messages belong to the person who wrote them."
Sounds like they get to have their cake and get to eat it too. They get all the benefits of using user generated content any way they want but have none of the liability. Good for them.
It's a square deal as is. You get to keep the copyright for your "work", but you cede the rights necessary for Twitter to disseminate your thoughts. You don't cede them to anyone else, and Twitter can't sue you for reusing your deep thoughts somewhere else.
The ability to revoke your stuff would indeed be nice. But to say that without it the deal is meaningless is just lame.
Same as on /. Look down...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.
Developers: We can use your help.
we can do whatever we want with them....
What alternative do you suggest?
Option A: don't claim the right to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" tweets. Problem: publishing material on a website involves using, copying, transmitting, displaying, adapting, modifying and distributing it, so they would be infringing copyright and, sooner or later, get sued by some troll (in other news: Twitter operates in countries outside the US which don't have the same "fair use" clauses in their copyright laws).
Option B: claim ownership of everything. They could do this if they wanted to - nobody forces you to post your 120 character masterwork on Twitter.
Option C: lock out the public and pay professional twitterers to produce pithy and erudite tweets on a "work for hire" basis. Tempting, but I don't see the business model.
Your call.
In a survey of 100 programmers, 111111 thought that duck-typing was a good idea.
we can do whatever we want with them....
What alternative do you suggest?
Option A: don't claim the right to "use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute" tweets. Problem: publishing material on a website involves using, copying, transmitting, displaying, adapting, modifying and distributing it, so they would be infringing copyright and, sooner or later, get sued by some troll (in other news: Twitter operates in countries outside the US which don't have the same "fair use" clauses in their copyright laws).
Option B: claim ownership of everything. They could do this if they wanted to - nobody forces you to post your 120 character masterwork on Twitter.
Option C: lock out the public and pay professional twitterers to produce pithy and erudite tweets on a "work for hire" basis. Tempting, but I don't see the business model.
Your call.
D: Move the server offshore and pirate other people's work.
They don't host ads... not for long! This is a typical dot bomb strategy - first you get lots of users, then you change the rules to start generating revenue, then you cash out quickly before everybody quits due to the rule change.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.