It would seem the current line of defense for Bill Schmalfeldt seems to be an attempt to point out that Hoge does the same thing he’s being blamed for. But that’s not entirely true. It’s not even mostly true. I’m not sure that it’s even a tiny smidgen true.
A frequent complaint as of late from Bill Schmalfeldt seems to be Hoge using entire twits (I don’t know why others call them tweets, it isn’t tweeter) on his webpage, and as a result Bill seems to be running around the web pointing out his perceived errors left and right. I’m not sure if that’s supposed to be harassment or some weird knew legal theory he’s pushing, since “He does it to” is generally not a great legal defense.
But let’s revisit the twits. Bill has complained that Hoge is using entire twits, which is in the world of Schmaldfeldt, exactly the same thing that Hoge is accusing him of. Only it isn’t. (I’d love to show you an example, but the last known (by me) Twitter account for Schmaldfeldt has been suspended.) However, he is wrong. By posting a twit, Bill gave Twitter and the rest of the world permission to share his twits.
This is from the terms of service on Twitter.
5. Your Rights
You retain your rights to any Content you submit, post or display on or through the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying Content on or through the Services, you grant us a worldwide, non-exclusive, royalty-free license (with the right to sublicense) to use, copy, reproduce, process, adapt, modify, publish, transmit, display and distribute such Content in any and all media or distribution methods (now known or later developed).
Tip: This license is you authorizing us to make your Tweets available to the rest of the world and to let others do the same.
From Twitter’s Terms of Service, Term #5
So under your use of Twitter, you give both Twitter and the rest of the world permission to use your twits.
So how does Hoge get to complain about Bill’s twits? Because Bill doesn’t just use Twittter, he attaches complete or significant portions of blog posts as images. The fact that Bill can’t see the difference is pretty telling.
Now apparently Bill has also been bothering the copyright holders of YouTube about Paul Krendler embedding a YouTube Video on his webpage. I don’t know if that’s true, but I’m working on that assumption here.
4. General Use of the Service—Permissions and Restrictions
YouTube hereby grants you permission to access and use the Service as set forth in these Terms of Service, provided that:
- You agree not to distribute in any medium any part of the Service or the Content without YouTube’s prior written authorization, unless YouTube makes available the means for such distribution through functionality offered by the Service (such as the Embeddable Player).
YouTube Terms Of Service, Term #4.1
Once again, if the embed option is on at a YouTube Video, then anyone can embed it wherever they like. Perhaps Bill should spend less time worrying about other people’s actions and spend more time worrying about his own.