it's brave to look at other companies receiving cease and desist notices and treat it as a market opening
C&D has zero legal weight. They're just relying on developers being conflict-averse. At my local hacker space, at least five members are in some kinds of protracted legal battles (five different ones)
twitterwebviewer.com was registered in Hong Kong
according to https://www.whois.com/whois/twitterwebviewer.com
Looks fine, they don't care about the notices i guess
.com domain zone is managed by Verysign US company. They will just C&D them.
"Check our Wikipedia page for our latest domain. Next stop the Central African Republic!"
the maker - https://peterslab.co/products/twitter-web-viewer
I guess my brain has been cooked by internet libertarianism but what's the basis of a C&D for proxying a website?
Is the legal basis just copyright of the contents?
Bigger "guns" diplomacy. They don't need any legal basis for a C&D. Just depends on whether you have enough money to fight it in court.
i dont know the legal basis used, or the validity. i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it
Well yeah the copyright violation is pretty clear cut here.
My understanding is that copyright of what's posted is retained by the poster. The Nitter C&D was around a ToS violation for scraping.
Violating ToS is legal, but so is sending a C&D for anything you like
C&D has zero legal weight. They're just relying on developers being conflict-averse. At my local hacker space, at least five members are in some kinds of protracted legal battles (five different ones)
twitterwebviewer.com was registered in Hong Kong
according to https://www.whois.com/whois/twitterwebviewer.com
Looks fine, they don't care about the notices i guess
.com domain zone is managed by Verysign US company. They will just C&D them.
"Check our Wikipedia page for our latest domain. Next stop the Central African Republic!"
the maker - https://peterslab.co/products/twitter-web-viewer
I guess my brain has been cooked by internet libertarianism but what's the basis of a C&D for proxying a website?
Is the legal basis just copyright of the contents?
Bigger "guns" diplomacy. They don't need any legal basis for a C&D. Just depends on whether you have enough money to fight it in court.
i dont know the legal basis used, or the validity. i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it
Well yeah the copyright violation is pretty clear cut here.
My understanding is that copyright of what's posted is retained by the poster. The Nitter C&D was around a ToS violation for scraping.
Violating ToS is legal, but so is sending a C&D for anything you like