Covered under copyright != how easy it would be to claim damages.

Ok so this is the point I’m trying to understand. If there is no recourse for someone to claim damages, in this case as internet comments because otherwise everyone would be claiming damages any time someone ever copied the text of their original comment, then what would even be the point of listing it as something that “cannot be copyrighted”? It’s like saying, well, the text on this post -it note is copyrighted because “text on post-it notes” isn’t listed specifically as works that cannot be copyrighted.

Then why post a link dealing specifically with twitters terms of use agreement? There is nothing copywritten about this comment. Anyone can copy and paste this without attributing me and there is no recourse for me. If someone copy and pastes a published book, they can sue. How can they possibly be the same thing…?

This may come as a surprise to you but there are internet comments outside of twitter that aren’t protected by twitter rules.

Also you can’t copy the idea of a book and reword it. Which you can do with a tweet.