Hacker News Reader

Comment by doublepg23 | Hacker News Reader

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

You don't have to fight a C&D, you can ignore it. But they may sue you and you have to fight that. But they can also sue you without a C&D or even after you comply with one. The C&D itself has no effect, but it's the equivalent of a gangster pointing at his own eyeballs and then yours, "I'm watching you."

you've replied here several times, i understand your position on C&Ds.

a C&D is reasonably understood as an intent to sue if you continue whatever they want you to cease.

my comment can be read as "i just know that i wouldnt want to have to spend the time or money fighting twitter over it (where "it" = ignoring their C&D and being sued)"

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com