Twitter can be a decent communications medium for some things, but let's face it: there's only so much one can say in 140 characters. It's hard to believe that a user could infringe on someone's copyright within such tight constraints, but someone apparently thinks it can. Twitter has removed an update posted by the music writer who runs JP's blog, citing a DMCA takedown request from an unnamed sender. The situation once again highlights the potential for abuse through the DMCA's takedown system, and raises questions about how much service providers should push back against abuses.
According to a post on JP's blog, JP received a message from Twitter with a URL to the tweet that was being removed, noting that the reason was because of a DMCA takedown notice. The tweet in question was a link to a blog post on his site posted on April 20. The post described a leaked album by The National, a link to the Amazon page where the album could be preordered, and two links to MP3s from the album, both of which were hosted elsewhere (Box.net and Mediafire).
Incidentally, that blog post with the leak is still online, while his tweet about the blog post is now offline. And, of course, the Streisand Effect is now taking place—even more attention has been drawn to the leak thanks to the anonymous DMCA takedown sender (which is likely the music label behind The National).
As noted by TechDirt, there are numerous questions here over whether a DMCA takedown was even appropriate in this case. After all, the text of the tweet itself did not contain any infringing material—it read "New Post: Leaked: The National — High Violet" with a link to JP's own blog. It's the Twitter equivalent of us here at Ars getting a takedown notice for linking to JP's blog post about the leaked album, which links to the MP3s. Did anyone retweet JP's tweet, and, if so, did those get taken down too? How far can a copyright holder go down the linking rabbit hole before it becomes too ridiculous, even for them?
There's also a question of whether JP's blog post itself should even be subject to a DMCA takedown on its own—it certainly makes more sense than the tweet, but JP doesn't host any of the MP3s of questionable origin on his own site. And, because he offers several paragraphs of commentary on the music, a lawyer could push the fair use angle on the post. If anything, the takedown-sender should have focused its attention on Mediafire and Box.net for hosting the leaked files. Then again, music bloggers can't seem to catch a break lately, so in that sense, it's hardly surprising to see a (likely) music label sending misguided DMCA notices.
Either way, it's clear that Twitter was not the proper recipient of this DMCA notice.
reader comments
46