There are a couple of news stories out this week that have caught my attention and actually managed to raise my ire just a bit. In my opinion, it just goes to show that double standards exist everywhere… ESPECIALLY when money is involved.

I was reading Tweeting for Twouble by Patricio Robles over at eConsultancy. It recaps a couple of stories from the past week including a very interesting one out of Arkansas about a juror who sent out a couple of updates via Twitter about the case he was hearing. Included in those not infamous Tweets:

So, Johnathan, what did you do today? Oh, nothing really. I just gave away TWELVE MILLION DOLLARS of somebody else’s money!

and the real killer…

Oh, and nobody buy Stoam. It’s bad mojo, and they’ll probably cease to exist, now that their wallet is $12M lighter

In that case the defendant lost and was ordered to pay $12 million dollars. He is now appealing that verdict based on a claim of juror misconduct regarding the Tweets…and he’ll probably get it. Then both sides have to pay their lawyers to do this all over again.

As interesting as that is…

…that’s not what caught my attention in the story. It was, in fact, a comment by Robles toward the end. What was said? I’m glad you asked!

Obviously this isn’t Twitter’s fault; Twitter is just a tool.

Really? This isn’t Twitter’s fault? Why not?

If I remember correctly, Napster was just a tool that helped users find other users that had files they were interested in. Yes, it was used most often for sharing music files BUT SO WHAT! The point is the files were never in the posession of Napster, in fact the file exchange actually happened via a peer-to-peer connection between the two users. And yet Napster was found to be “liable for contributory infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright; and … for vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright1.” Twitter actually stores the messages and THEN forwards them. Beyond the title of the file being shared, Napster didn’t know anything about the content of the file while Twitter stores and indexes the content of the updates it sends out.

I’ve made a similar argument before that Napster was really no different that Xerox and JVC (with the VCR) yet neither of them were shut down for enabling anonymous users to violate the copyright of original producers. Why not? If Napster can be found guilty of “vicarious infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright” how is it that Xerox and every other copier company cannot? (hint: better lawyers maybe?)

Don’t get me wrong, I love Twitter and I don’t think they’ve done anything wrong in the cited case. I just want to point out the obvious double standard that has been applied. And now that there is money on the line over this case, and others, will someone start looking at Twitter the same way they looked at Napster?

1A&M Records, Inc. v. Napster, Inc., 239 F.3d 1004, 1013, 1020 (9th Cir. 2001)

No related posts.

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.