Twitter Removes Nickelback Meme Trump Tweets, But Leaves All The Others Up
from the what-do-you-meme? dept
By now you're likely aware that Donald Trump tweets. Like, a lot. An unfortunate amount, actually. And he also often takes a break from tweeting his own authored... I don't know, let's call them thoughts... to instead simply retweet any sycophanitic content he can find out there. Sometimes, in fact, he retweets things that may be infringing upon copyright.
And sometimes what he retweets is more innocent, at least in the context of intellectual property.
A video posted by Donald Trump has been removed from Twitter after a copyright claim by the rock band Nickelback.
The video took aim at the Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, opening with a clip of him saying he had never discussed business dealings with his son Hunter. Trump’s efforts to encourage the Ukrainian president to investigate Hunter Biden lie at the centre of an impeachment inquiry launched by House Democrats last week.
Following the Biden segment, the clip posted by Trump then cuts to a popular, if niche, meme based on an edit of the music video for the 2005 Nickelback single Photograph.
In the video Trump tweeted out, Chad Kroeger holds up a picture that shows Biden with his son and someone misleadingly labeled a Ukrainian energy exec (really, Biden's son's long term American business partner) and yes this is all stupid and insane but what can I do guys this is 2019 and I just can't anymore but I have to because life is still probably worth living right or maybe not?
Let me take a breath.
Anyhoo, that tweet no longer contains the video in question, as you can see below.
LOOK AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH! pic.twitter.com/QQYTqG4KTt
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 2, 2019
In case you cannot see that, the video was taken down at the request of the copyright owner, which in this case would either be the band or its label. It's worth noting at this point that this meme is a rather well known one, with a zillion other examples of its use all over Twitter and the internet. The chief difference between those others and Trump's tweet would be including the Bidens in the picture rather than a million other things that people have inserted into that photograph. This might lead some to scream about Twitter being biased...but not so much. Plenty of clearly conservative parties have tweeted out the video and had it remain up as of the time of this writing.
Look at this photograph! pic.twitter.com/MzWmwlGMHc
— Fresno Young Republicans (@FYRAction) October 2, 2019
Instead, this looks like a high profile tweet by a President many people don't like got the attention of Nickelback, who didn't want their names associated with Donald Trump. And so they DMCA'd the video in Trump's tweet. Twitter, rather than putting any real thought into how widespread the meme is, whether the meme is Fair Use, or whether this actually constitutes copyright infringement, simply took the video down. Because, frankly, that's how this generally works.
Which sucks. President Trump does many, many, oh so many things that I personally find horrific. Sharing memes that aren't entirely without wit, however, isn't really one of them. And, as we've pointed out in the past, even if you hate the President, you shouldn't celebrate copyright abuse to silence his expression. That's not what copyright is for.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: censorship, copyright, donald trump, fair use, free speech, memes, nickelback
Companies: twitter
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Neither Joe Biden or Donald Trump should be president. Problem solved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'll bet you could find plenty of bi-partisan support for that compromise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Liz Warren for 2020 plz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I wish "none of the above" was a viable option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Anonymous Coward for 2020?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Snowden or Sanders
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Snowden 2020
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'd like the option for a negative vote. Instead of voting for someone, use my vote to cancel one vote that was for that person.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
In a 2-party system that's basically the same as voting for the other person. Whether you add to candidate A's total or subtract from B's, A pulls ahead of B by 1 vote. And they only need to be ahead by 1 to win, whether it's 1-to-0 or 100,000,000-to-99,999,999.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That sounds like a great way to ensure that no third party will ever get any attention. It's bad enough with the current system you have where people vote for the two party system because they're afraid of splitting the vote, but that just guarantees no third party will become prominent enough to even consider.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
That's a feature, not a bug. Third parties are also shut out of televised debates.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ranked voting would be better than the present two (major) parties. I imagine that very few of the present day politicians agree.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
What you're looking for is this:
https://www.amazon.com/Artisan-Owl-Giant-Meteor-Already/dp/B07HKY15N8/ref=sxts_kp?keywords=gia nt+meteor+2020&pd_rd_i=B07HKY15N8&pd_rd_r=4a17ba47-3bdf-4861-8401-2ab360de8946&pd_rd_w=U 3Hzm&pd_rd_wg=Shps6&pf_rd_p=81d99bd4-f902-4b23-8928-b05d50fd5b3c&pf_rd_r=RFW9QKFX4ZR9F9E NNKQ0&qid=1570238443
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If I vote for one of them it will not be one that promises to add trillions more to the debt and simultaneously dismantle the large companies that make the US competitive abroad. Our national debt is more than 100% of GDP and a lot of the democrats keep promising to borrow and spend as much as they can as fast as they can in office. It will start devaluing the currency and then the entire economy may follow.
In the modern US, the party of fiscal responsibility (both of the major parties have claimed to be that before) appears to be the foreign powers meddling in the election.
If we re-elect Trump, maybe he'll sell the wall to Mexico and finally make them pay for it though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If I tell you I'll pay you cold, hard cash to vote for me, that's illegal and called vote buying.
If I tell you I'll take, through force, the money your neighbor has and pay you (through government handouts) to vote for me, that's legal, and called electioneering.
Just say "no" to both.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"If I vote for one of them it will not be one that promises to add trillions more to the debt and simultaneously dismantle the large companies that make the US competitive abroad."
So, you're voting against the Republicans due to the visible effects of Trump's tariffs? Trump doesn't even have the excuse of coming out of a worldwide recession to explain what he's added so far, and his actions indicate it will get far worse in the next few years..
"Our national debt is more than 100% of GDP and a lot of the democrats keep promising to borrow and spend as much as they can as fast as they can in office"
Yes, it's unfortunate, but the huge damage done by Trump's bad deals and tax cuts will take some capital to repair.
"If we re-elect Trump, maybe he'll sell the wall to Mexico and finally make them pay for it though."
Wouldn't you rather vote for something that will actually happen?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
So, you're voting against the Republicans due to the visible effects of Trump's tariffs?
I don't know what to say about China, we need to restructure around them because their command economy doesn't quite play on the same terms as any other country in the world. I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the Chinese economy so I can't say whether Trump's efforts are even close to the right ones but I do know China's economy is more predatory to the United States than any other country in the world. (except maybe N.Korea but it's tiny)
Yes, it's unfortunate, but the huge damage done by Trump's bad deals and tax cuts will take some capital to repair.
Trumps tariffs and tax cuts are a tiny drop in the ocean of the debt that Congress has wracked up for the US. I doubt it's even half a percent. (Technically the Congress is supposedly in charge of the budget but they managed to quasi-legally cede a lot of their Constitutional authority to the President so they don't get bad press about the budget.)
The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge contributors to the debt, and we had a lot of debt before those happened. Also, I still don't what to say about the Clinton and Bush tax cuts. Blaming recent action for the debt is not reality based and our companies actually do need to have a similar tax burden to that of their foreign competitors or they won't have enough money to pour into R&D and product development.
Wouldn't you rather vote for something that will actually happen?
You missed the "if I vote" part. The wall comment was a joke about Trump's obviously undeliverable campaign promise to make Mexico pay for the border wall. It was satire/sarcasm only.
I can still be convinced to vote but one of the democratic candidates will have to be a lot better than Trump and I haven't seen that yet. Some could be though, I haven't researched a lot of them closely at this point. Or, if the democrats choose someone a lot worse Trump I am willing to vote the other way.
The one who is suing Google because she feels Google violated her free speech rights doesn't impress me because as President she would owe Google free speech rights, not the other way around. I don't want to be sued for not respecting due process in courts I don't run in the future or something.
The "borrow trillions of additional dollars as a plan and on purpose" crowd of democrats will not get my vote. (Warren, Sanders, and maybe a couple others)
There's a guy who keeps running ads here in which he promises to exercise his authority to do things outside his Constitutional authority without realizing it. It's kind of like he didn't read the job description before running. He also keeps blaming Trump for making normal business decisions when Trump was running his businesses.
The openly gay one has promised to alienate friendly Muslim countries because they're not friendly to gays and that could really affect our ability to track al Qaeda and similar organizations. Other than that his stated policies are largely fine but the ongoing war is actually a big part of the President's job.
Not voting because I can't decide who is the less bad one is a distinct option.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
" I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the Chinese economy so I can't say whether Trump's efforts are even close to the right ones"
They're not. https://slate.com/business/2019/10/trump-tariffs-bayou-steel-group.html
"Trumps tariffs and tax cuts are a tiny drop in the ocean of the debt that Congress has wracked up for the US."
Then you should not be supporting Republicans, since they have controlled Congress for a majority of the period of time you claim to be concerned about. https://history.house.gov/Institution/Party-Divisions/Party-Divisions/
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge contributors to the debt, and we had a lot of debt before those happened."
...and which party was in control for most of those years?
"It was satire/sarcasm only."
Poe's law. It's impossible to tell any more since so many people say such things seriously, especially those who have introduced themselves as Republican voters.
"The "borrow trillions of additional dollars as a plan and on purpose" crowd of democrats will not get my vote."
So, you care only about the initial cost of the plans and not the long term return on investment?
"Not voting because I can't decide who is the less bad one is a distinct option."
Then, you accept whoever the people who do vote choose for you, even if it's the worst one for you personally.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You were making sense right up to, but not including, this bit:
Not voting for either of two despicable candidates does not infer acceptance of the voting outcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not voting for either of two despicable candidates does not infer acceptance of the voting outcome."
No, but not voting at all does. If you vote, but choose to vote for an independent, a minority party or writing in "Mickey Mouse" indicates that you are part of the process, even if your voice is smaller than the major parties. Hell, if everybody who complains about the R/D dichotomy actually got off their asses and did so, there might be a viable third party for once.
But, refusing to vote at all just says you're not bothering to take part in your civic duty, which implies acceptance of what the people who do bother to vote choose for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I'll vote green by not wasting the gas to drive to the polls for a party that has absolutely no chance of actually winning.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, not only won't you vote, you'll do so in a way that simply implies you're too lazy/stupid to look into absentee options, rather than just apathetic?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've voted absentee before.
Not making them waste resources to print and deliver an absentee ballot is still doing more for the green party than casting a ballot that will not have any chance of actually electing a green party candidate would.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
If everybody who said "I would vote for a third party but it's a waste of my vote" actually bothered to vote for who they claim to want, you'd actually have a viable third party. But, you'd rather stay silent and ensure that a party that actually promises to further destroy the environment gains power instead.
I'm sure somewhere that makes sense to you, but hey stay home if you want. You just shouldn't then whine that the party that's been chosen for you doesn't do what you wan them to do. You abstained, so you asked for the decision to be made for you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
you'd actually have a viable third party
I know but here's the rub, I already know enough people think like that to make it accurate. It's paradoxical and/or self-fulfilling but it's actually true. There is not enough support for a third party to be viable right now.
Last time there was a close to viable third party it was the reform party led by Ross Perot. All he did was split the Republicans so the no-tax wing of the Republican party would abandon George H.W. Bush (he didn't veto a small raise in taxes) and gave a victory to Clinton.
By most standards George H.W. Bush was a really good President though he gave controversial Iran-Contra pardons.
Ross Perot had a lot of good attributes but he's not thought very highly of because he ushered in a new era of extremism in the fiscal wings of both parties that's not that great for anyone unless they have the hobby of counting zero's in bank accounts that have grown so large their owners can't increase their quality of life by spending more money anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"There is not enough support for a third party to be viable right now."
Yet, American political discussions are full of people saying they'd vote for one.
Yes, it won't be easy, the system is gamed to favour a 2 party competition and to require stupid levels of funding and campaign durations. But at the end of the day, everybody who says "I won't bother voting, but I'd vote 3rd party if I did" is part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
The problem isn't "lack of support", it's the tactical voting issues induced by Duverger's Law that prevent people from expressing that support at the polls.
Filed under: fix the voting system, and the third parties will come
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"China, we need to restructure around them because their command economy doesn't quite play on the same terms as any other country in the world."
Not sure what you are attempting to say here, but cheap labor is presently the huge draw for China but that is changing just like it did in Japan. The labor intensive work will move elsewhere as soon as it is economically advantageous.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"Not sure what you are attempting to say here, but cheap labor is presently the huge draw for China but that is changing just like it did in Japan. The labor intensive work will move elsewhere as soon as it is economically advantageous."
That's actually a myth today. 1990 it was still true, but today we've got people like Tim Cook who say stuff like this;
"There's a confusion about China. The popular conception is that companies come to China because of low labor cost. I'm not sure what part of China they go to but the truth is China stopped being the low labor cost country many years ago. And that is not the reason to come to China from a supply point of view. The reason is because of the skill, and the quantity of skill in one location and the type of skill it is."
The real reason China is the go-to country for outsourcing finicky manufacture today is because the US - hell, most of the west - has largely given up on acquiring and maintaining the skillsets necessary for large-scale industrialization.
“The U.S., over time, began to stop having as many vocational kind of skills,” Cook explained. “I mean, you can take every tool and die maker in the United States and probably put them in a room that we’re currently sitting in. In China, you would have to have multiple football fields.”
It's been "economically advantageous" to move manufacturing elsewhere than China for many years. And yet most of the quality hardware made today is still assembled in China. Because they have the industrial capacity and we don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I don't know all the ins-and-outs of the Chinese economy so I can't say whether Trump's efforts are even close to the right ones but I do know China's economy is more predatory to the United States than any other country in the world. (except maybe N.Korea but it's tiny)"
Here's a clue - They're market capitalists. Something the US gave up when it started focusing on relying on "intellectual property" to save their industry. What Trump is doing with his trade war is to ensure the continual drain of all involved parties. And China is far more robust in that regard than the US is, today.
"The wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge contributors to the debt, and we had a lot of debt before those happened. Also, I still don't what to say about the Clinton and Bush tax cuts. Blaming recent action for the debt is not reality based..."
Too many people don't get this. GWB's war, the bailout packages from the 2009 mortgage/toxic debt crash, and then the subsequent refusal to trim sails and tighten the budget has left the US in a VERY deep fiscal lurch. Unfortunately only two solutions exist; One consists of making yet one more massive loan to get things back on a sustainable path and look forward to paying it off in perpetuity. The other one consists of cutting expenses and paying off the debt ASAP - and that means shredding just about every government service left untouched, including the military and thus many of it's major suppliers, probably causing a massive recession.
Republicans will choose neither.
"The openly gay one has promised to alienate friendly Muslim countries because they're not friendly to gays..."
Honestly? A lot of the US "allies" could do with some alienation. Saudi Arabia has more or less openly sponsored radicalism and terror groups right under the nose of the US, to a ridiculous degree. Hell, Al Quaeda may have been originally trained by the guys the US taught to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan but almost all their effective leadership and planning came out of Saudi Arabias upper crust.
"Not voting because I can't decide who is the less bad one is a distinct option."
Or find anyone not affiliated with either. Choosing to simply not vote at all just means caving in to Plato.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"one that promises to add trillions more to the debt and simultaneously dismantle the large companies that make the US competitive abroad".
Which party is in power when the national debt is increased? Which party promises to be the party of small government but never actually tries to be small - they make it much larger.
Large corporations make the us competitive abroad? How does this work? Simply being a large corporation automatically makes one competitive regardless of the stupid mistakes made at the C-Suite level - I don't think so Tim.
" a lot of the democrats keep promising to borrow and spend as much as they can as fast as they can"
Looks like a rather broad and all encompassing statement, which typically indicates assumptions gone wild.
" It will start devaluing the currency and then the entire economy may follow."
Donald & Co have been doing a spectacular job at this.
"In the modern US, the party of fiscal responsibility (both of the major parties have claimed to be that before) appears to be the foreign powers meddling in the election."
Please explain this as it makes little sense and I am curious about how one could come to this rather bizarre conclusion.
We will, thankfully, not be able to re-elect trump due to his incarceration.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Which party is in power when the national debt is increased?
Do you like Repulicrats or Demicans as a name more?
Looks like a rather broad and all encompassing statement, which typically indicates assumptions gone wild.
If you actually listened to some of their spending plans you would probably agree that "unrestrained" is an accurate description of it.
Please explain this as it makes little sense and I am curious about how one could come to this rather bizarre conclusion.
It was also satire. It was satire and a comment about the Russia-Internet Research Agency situation. But it is true that modern politicians don't run on fiscal responsibility at the federal level because Congress can't deliver it. The other states won't allow them.
We will, thankfully, not be able to re-elect trump due to his incarceration.
If Trump ran from prison and won he would be let out to serve his Presidency unless his cabinet removed him for incompetence or the Congress removed him through impeachment. He may then have to return to jail to serve his remaining sentence after he was done being President. That's what the Constitution says for real.
Incidentally, according to the Constitution if a state tried to lock up the sitting President without impeachment or removal by his cabinet he could call in the armed forces to enforce martial law under the insurrection clause. If the federal government tried to do that he really could just pardon himself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you're wondering why the Constitution is structured like that, the electoral college is supposed to overrule the popular vote if the President that was chosen is obviously unfit for some reason.
That's the specific reason for the electoral college.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
As the saying goes, 'You had One job.'
Well that certainly did not work out well this last time if that's supposed to be their job and the justification for overruling the desires of the voting public...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Well, in that case they failed spectacularly in 2016.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yeah, there's a reason a lot of people want to get rid of the electoral college.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I can't believe I misspelled republicrats. That's supposed to be republicrats instead of repulicrats.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It would probably be easier if you referred to them by their real names instead of making up childish nicknames that just scream "this idiot isn't mature enough to understand what he's complaining about".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
OMFG
I have to ask, are you from the US?
That nickname for the republicans/democrats acting like a single party on an issue and giving voters absolutely choice has been around since the 1800's. I'd have to be pretty fucking old to make that one up. I may have had to have had the opportunity to vote for Lincoln if I was the person who made up that word.
GOD
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"I have to ask, are you from the US?"
No.
"That nickname for the republicans/democrats acting like a single party on an issue and giving voters absolutely choice has been around since the 1800's"
It's still massively childish. Lots of words that have been around since the 1800s reveal the speaker to be not worth listening to when used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your excuse of "I'm not from the US" is valid.
If you have a better derogatory term for our 2 major parties acting like a single party despite the fact voters repeatedly switch parties just to get away from the other parties stance on the issue then I'll use it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"If you have a better derogatory term for our 2 major parties acting like a single party"
Well, the fact that you need to come up with derogatory terms rather than just dealing with facts is noted. As is the need to pretend that "both sides are the same" despite some significant differences between them on some fundamental issues (although, granted, not enough on other issues).
Also, given the well documented shifts in party positions since the Southern Strategy was implemented, don't you at least think it a little strange that the same nicknames would be applicable to each party in the same way as they were before party ideology switched?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No, that's more of a feature than a bug.
If they still appear to be republicrats, largely acting like a one-party entity, before and after the southern strategy where even the leadership switched parties then the name seems pretty accurate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It makes your lack of activity comfortable, doesn't it? "Oh, it's the same group either way so why bother doing anything?". Far better than taking any action.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
In your comment you define yourself as a fool according to one of our philosophers but you are once again not from the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Neither should Warren
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I’m not saying whether the takedown was right or wrong. I do believe Trump could file a counter notice on fair use grounds, and that the takedown could be thus considered illegitimate. But this was Trump’s 7th DMCA Takedown Notice he has received in 2019 alone. If Joe Schmo got that many takedown notices (assuming he didn’t counterclaim the previous 6), I’d suspect Twitter would terminate his account due to its repeat infringer policy mandated by the law. But Trump is immune because his tweets are “newsworthy”? Twitter’s failure to terminate Trump’s account according to its repeat infringer policy shows a double standard that could cost Twitter its DMCA safe harbor. In my mind, that’s the worse of the two evils!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two sentences earlier you were taking a guess at what the policy is, and now you've decided it's to terminate the account. Do you know it or not? Is it a published policy? Does it have an exception for them to not count a "strike" if they've determined something to be fair use?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Ah, but Twitter and Facebook have carved out exemptions for politicians.
So just register yourself as a politician, and when Twitter goes to take down your account, point out to them that they're breaking policy, and that what you say is newsworthy because you're a politician, and so it is by default, fair use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Seven Commandments Broken
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Oh boy, the trolls will now become politicians.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You say that like the politicians haven't already become trolls...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Fix the system, but also use the system as it currently works
Look, the system is clearly broken and needs fixing. But if I'm in a band and don't like a particular tweet by the president that uses my song, why wouldn't I use the current system as it currently works to get the—albeit expedient—result I want?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix the system, but also use the system as it currently work
Because doing so helps to normalize ad legitimize the practice of abusing the law for things it's not supposed to be used for, and creates a precedent that could backfire and be used in a way they don't support down the line.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fix the system, but also use the system as it currently
Then, if people have a problem with that if might create the impetus needed to fix the problems with the law that allows it. As with too many things, it will suck for a while but if damage to something the right people actually care about is what it takes to finally take action, so be it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fix the system, but also use the system as it currently work
Per Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., not considering fair use could get you in trouble. In theory, if done in bad faith.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apologies in advance. I had to do it to ’em.
I hate to be the one to call out a troll, and especially in a situation involving Trump, buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut…
Hey, Blue Balls! What do you think of this instance of a corporation using copyright to censor someone else’s speech?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apologies in advance. I had to do it to ’em.
Where is Poochie! Where is Poochie!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apologies in advance. I had to do it to ’em.
<crickets>
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You can tweet lies, you can tweet racist dogwhistles, you can retweet white nationalists and far white conspiracy theories, but sharing Nickelback is where Twitter draw the line.
You shouldn't share them as a wise man,
You shouldn't share them as a rich man tweeting.
They'll let you tweet just like a madman,
Conspiracies about all those impeaching.
But this'll make them act finally.
This'll make them act finally, you racist old man.
This'll make them act finally, you racist old man.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Far be it from me to "celebrate" copyright abuse, but given that Trump is in a position to try to change the law being abused a personal reminder of it's potential for abuse may be useful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Munches Popkorn]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[Munches Popkorn]
I'm just here for the TDS
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ignorant motherfucker brand popcorn. Now with 100% old maids
That the Russian brand or popcorn bro? Or are you too stupid to spell popcorn right. I mean it’s not like you totally failed to get your post right in one go eh.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It was Warner Music
TF hunted down the DMCA filing..
https://torrentfreak.com/dmca-notice-confirms-trump-tweet-was-taken-down-by-warner-music/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It was Warner Music
Well, that's no surprise. DMCA/Copyright law is king, even above Trump!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
In fairness, no self respecting person would want to be associated with Nickelback either.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]