Slashdot Mirror
Twitter Yanks Tweets That Repeat Copyrighted Joke
Mark Wilson writes at Beta News: Can a joke be copyrighted? Twitter seems to think so. As spotted by Twitter account Plagiarism is Bad a number of tweets that repeat a particular joke are being hidden from view. The tweets have not been deleted as such, but their text has been replaced with a link to Twitter's Copyright and DMCA policy.
Quality of the joke itself aside -- no accounting for taste -- this seems a strange move for a site and service which is largely based around verbatim retransmission of other people's low-character-count declarations, recipes, questions, and Yes, jokes.
... post seems to be missing a link to the article, so here it is: http://betanews.com/2015/07/25...
It's turtles all the way down.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Every thing you write (in US at least) is copyright-en by default. So every thin you post (even this post) is copyroght-en. If Twittwe yanks Tweeks over one copyright, then they need to do it for all, or get sued for illegal copyright distribution.
What this is good thing! So at 140 characters all tweets would be exhausted at copyright-en at about 40^144 tweets, with untill the life of the poster plus 95 years! Twitter is dead! Yeah!
The joke isn't funny.
Having said that, most people would like their jokes to be told again, if possible with attribution. So unless the creator has gone through the process of copyrighting the joke and enforcing it, it seems to be an overkill to enforce it suo motu.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Maybe if the Flying Spaghetti Monster was substituted, it would not offend the copyright Goons.
The Spike Milligan estate wishes to remind you that the Goons copyrighted the Flying Spaghetti Monster joke.
And the BBC copyrighted the Goons.
Quality of the joke itself aside - no accounting for taste - this seems a strange move for a site and service which is largely based around verbatim retransmission of other people's low-character-count declarations, recipes, questions, and Yes, jokes.
It takes a good actor to deliver it convincingly. Not the joke. It being funny.
I'd rather have this piece of dung being forgotten than copyrighted. But yes, of course jokes are creative work and can be copyrighted. Even though in this time and age, and this copyright, I'd rather not. It's one thing if the latest and greatest crap some whining buoy howled cannot be distributed (and it would actually do the world a great favor if it wasn't), but laughter and humor should not be reigned in.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The joke is stupid; "Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side". Honestly, why anyone would want to claim that is beyond me.
From digital spy:
Olga Lexell, a freelance writer in LA, is allegedly the first person to publish this joke to Twitter. Tweeting this afternoon, she confirmed that she did file a request to get the messages removed.
Well Olga, your shitty joke will now be an example of the Streisand effect.
-Styopa
Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side
Is that a joke? It doesn't seem to be a very good one.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
At my age, I've done this twice already. The alternative prep procedure is to spend a whole day watching MSNBC, but most people opt for the gallon jug of "Golightly" (the actual name!) as a humane alternative.
"Peepee"
Some people giggled, therefore it is a joke and complete work of art, and therefore copyrightable. Nobody can use the word "peepee" without express permission of me.
Absurd enough yet?
Because the idea that any statement or phrase, no matter how lame, could be construed as a joke and therefore copyrightable sure is.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
This is how I broke it down:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
Somebody else in a different thread had a different interpretation, but here's mine:
It comes from the perspective of someone who believes a juice cleanse is a waste of money so the person who bought one got punished for wasting money when they threw up.
Oh silly me, I assume that the juice cleans came out the other side.
Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
The "joke":
Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side.
Don't knock-knock it.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
Actually I was hoping the joke was removed because it was The Funniest Joke in the World in the Monty Python sense, and that it had to be removed since it caused danger to life.
Regrettably that is not the case.
They can just force something like CC license on user content. It won't work against stuff that have been copyrighted already but works against jokes written in twitter directly.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion. -- Spazmania (174582)
So you're saying I can claim copyright of every racist, terrible, piece of dross written on Twitter as long as I can prove I wrote it before them? I can clean up Twitter. It will be copyright notices as far as the eye can see. Only truly useful posts will survive.
Thanks to the DMCA, you don't even have to hold copyright, you just have to claim you do. Then for anyone who actually fights your takedown notice you can just say that your "automated system" messed up.
Enigma
Taking down this joke is for your own good.
Have gnu, will travel.
So they banned Carlos Mencia's twitter account?
"Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
That anyone repeated that awful joke.
"Joke"? I don't see any kind of in-line conflict, anything to misconstrue, any lingual curveball or disruption, anything contradictory (seemingly or actually), or even a pun. I'm not talking about "taste", I'll allow a shitty level of wit, I mean either you pony up some kind of mechanic that's at least ARGUABLY capricious or that word does not fucking apply and the person at each step of the echo chamber tracing back to Original Claim is an idiot.
With these headlines I normally drop something clever about imaginary property, but I'm still bent out of shape over having to blast that "joke" business back into line.
A. Knock-knock. B. Who's there? A. To get to the other side.
No. Wait. Dammit. I suck at this.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Shit, now I have to take time out of my day to watch that episode.
Chewbacon
The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
Actually I was hoping the joke was removed because it was The Funniest Joke in the World in the Monty Python sense, and that it had to be removed since it caused danger to life. Regrettably that is not the case.
The value of life has gone down. The value of opinions about food trends has gone up. And you're talking about Twitter - they don't have the attention span to get them through a silly walk.
Sorry, I can't tell you the rest, it's been redacted
Table-ized A.I.
Writing a joke is hard work. Sure, it's 140 characters, but it can take a long time of searching out inspiration, research, and then writing and rewriting to get it in its punchiest form. Most of us come up with good ones on our own every once in a while, but producing enough to sustain an online following can be a heavy investment. It's no surprise the producers are leaning on twitter for some protection of their reputation and/or livelihood.
As usual, though, it is misguided. The difference between a successful joke and a failed jokes is precisely that the former is likely to get repeated. It's half the reason people follow this accounts and watch comedians is so they can borrow material to entertain their friends and romantic interests. Maybe that's not 100% honest but that's a part of what's driving your traffic. Some jokes have to be told from your perspective -- a citation ruins the humor. (Or you've modified it and citing now would be entirely honest.) Sometimes you remember the joke but not where it came from. That's part of the life of a joke.
But it is strikingly dishonest when you have other accounts stealing material wholesale, morning radio programs running your material without credit, and traffic-generating pages copying it verbatim (except for the citation). Whether that should invite legal response I don't know, but it should certainly invite some shame.
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
Notice that the user has now protected her account. You can only see her Tweets if she unprotects her account. With this publicity, she'll get lots of requests, thus lots of followers.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
This joke would be funnier if it was about a "Jews Cleanse" instead!
All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain.
So if I set up a script that produces all possibly text 140 characters or less and then copyrite them, can I essentially kill Twitter because every tweet possible is now copyrighted?
"Saw someone spill their high end juice cleanse all over the sidewalk and now I know god is on my side."
Come at me, bro.
In Soviet Russia, dot slashes YOU!