@kathleenthelaw "does not interfere with the copyright owners' ability to issue notices" is a factor that's been considered when "reasonably implemented" under 512(i) is being examined. Capitol Records v. MP3tunes 821 F. Supp. 2d 627, 637 (SDNY 2011).

I think there's a good argument that threatening copyright owners with bans for takedowns that don't meet the 512(f) bad faith threshold chills and interferes with reporting, and isn't a reasonably implemented repeat offender policy.

@kathleenthelaw The problem with the plain words of his statement is that there's no reasonable way to read the statement separately from the earlier incident and his response to it.

If he sticks with the as-stated policy, he's probably fine. But if he implements the policy more consistently with the actions he took - protecting a high-follower, paying customer with multiple other unrelated strikes - I think it's problematic.

@mmasnick @kathleenthelaw Serious note, though:
IIRC, when I looked at this issue and reached a conclusion that this kind of scraping is probably within the Twitter license, I could only get to "very probably," and I had to read both the TOS and some of the developer policies to get there.

I don't think this is an area where it's immediately obvious that the reuse is allowed.

@mmasnick @kathleenthelaw
Yeah, I think _probably_ the use was within what Twitter sublicenses to other users.

But it's incredibly easy to see how someone could get pissed off at the reuse and make a good-faith mistake on this one. The re-user is a leech who built their following by aggregating other people's stuff and providing credit in ways that makes locating the original harder than it needs to be. This looks exactly like the kind of good-faith mistake 512 is supposed to protect.

@kathleenthelaw @mmasnick

I'm not sure it does implicate (i) but I'm also not sure it doesn't.

The account on the receiving end of this DMCA seems to specialize in scraping other people's content and republishing it with an attribution tag but not any direct link to the source. It's been, by its own admission, a repeat subject of DMCA takedowns.

And Elon announced that the account won't be banned.

@mmasnick To be clear: I'm not necessarily opposed to suspending accounts of repeat DMCA bad faith actors but ---

fuckit, he's speedrunning another area of law again.