Dorsey Responses to Senators on Copyright Reform Show Contempt for Congress and IP

“The translation seems to be that Twitter feels they are not a publisher, just a private platform that censors what they dislike, and they don’t dislike copyright infringement unless and until a DMCA notice is provided.” December 28, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), Chair of the Senate IP Subcommittee, and Senator Chris Coons (D-DE), Ranking Member of the Senate IP Subcommittee, sent another letter to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey expressing disappointment over the company’s continued refusal to cooperate on hearings around copyright reform. Tillis and Coons were joined by Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI), as they often are on IP issues. The letter reiterated the senators’ frustration that Twitter refused to provide a witness for the IP Subcommittee hearing on December 15 focused on the role existing technology plays in curbing online piracy.

In an all too kind characterization, the letter sent by Senators Tillis, Coons and Hirono also expressed disappointment with the “incomplete responses to written questions sent by Chairman Tillis in advance of the hearing.” Frankly, the “answers” to the questions presented by Chairman Tillis by Dorsey for the record were completely non-responsive. Indeed, Dorsey demonstrated complete disinterest in substantive engagement, an absolute lack of good faith, and conscious disregard—near contempt really—for the duty of candor owed by witnesses to the Subcommittee.

Dodge and Deflect

Witness this direct question by Chairman Tillis to Twitter prior to the December 15 hearing, which was presaged by recognition that Twitter has been enormously effective with respect to censoring conservative voices on its platform: “Don’t you think that if Twitter can track and take down political content that it also has the ability to take down content that infringes the IP of hard-working American creators?”

At no point during Dorsey’s response did he mention the conscious political censorship Twitter has engaged in, which was taken to new heights only recently with the complete censorship of the New York Post, one of the oldest publications in the United States, which reported a story relating to Hunter Biden, the son of President Elect Joe Biden. Instead, Dorsey claimed that “Twitter will respond to reports of alleged copyright infringement” and pointed to “transparency reports” and then further claimed that “allegedly infringing material is a small fraction of the total Tweets uploaded to Twitter.”

The question, however, was why Twitter is able to proactively on their own volition take down conservative political speech and why they treat content that infringes the intellectual property rights of American workers differently. Perhaps there is an articulable Twitter position that could offer some explanation regarding the difference between political censorship and taking down infringing content, but no such explanation was forthcoming. Indeed, there was no response to the question other than a vague, indirect, passing reference that implied that the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) doesn’t require Twitter to be proactive with respect to infringing material. Why it is easy to, on their own, remove conservative Tweets and content—the focus of the question— remains unanswered.

And so went every other question posed by Chairman Tillis.

“Can you tell me about the number of human moderators you have at Twitter, and how many are working on copyright infringement?” Tillis asked. Dorsey simply refused to answer the question, which obviously sought an approximate real number of some kind, which someone at Twitter obviously knows or can access. Dorsey’s complete response was:

Twitter uses a combination of machine learning and human review to adjudicate reports of violations of the Twitter Rules and make determinations on whether the activity violates our rules. With hundreds of millions of Tweets sent every day, we recognize that engaging in content moderation at scale requires increased use of machine learning and algorithms to surface and take action against violations of our rules. Thus, we continue to invest in efforts to automate content moderation. As a result of these investments, more than 50 percent of Tweets we take action on for abuse are now proactively surfaced using technology, rather than relying on reports to Twitter.

If this were testimony in a courtroom the answer would be struck from the record as being nonresponsive to the question and the witness instructed to answer the question.


Dorsey’s Non-Responses Undermine Section 230 Defense

Obviously, these issues are of great importance for a variety of reasons, not simply because of the copyright reforms being considered by the Senate IP Subcommittee, but also because of what will be the push to reform or eliminate Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, a section that provides safe harbor immunity to platforms because they can’t possibly be expected to moderate all the content that their users post. But the raison d’être for such immunity provided by Section 230 has been effectively undermined by the political censorship of Twitter and other platforms. Twitter is obviously capable of censoring at least some viewpoints and Tweets of their own volition, even putting caution messages on certain Tweets as part of their own fact-checking endeavors. Still, they frustrate the attempts of intellectual property rights holders at nearly every turn, and they do nothing, it seems, to proactively stop infringement on their platform. Why?

Twitter seems to consciously hide behind the DMCA with respect to intellectual property infringement and claims it is not a publisher. “Under Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, services like Twitter are not considered publishers for hosting content by third parties,” Dorsey explained in his “answers” to questions posed by Chairman Tillis in advance of the December 15 hearing. “This protection allows us to act responsibly to promote healthy conversations by taking action against misinformation, abuse, harm and illegal activity that makes its way onto Twitter…” The translation seems to be that Twitter feels they are not a publisher, just a private platform that censors what they dislike, and they don’t dislike copyright infringement unless and until a DMCA notice is provided, but they affirmatively make it difficult for rights owners before and after the fact—even large industry groups like the RIAA—to seek redress by not providing an API and lacking even a modicum of transparency when dealing with copyright owners.

Not a Matter of Degree

The comparison between censoring the accounts of high-profile conservative figures and certain media publications may at first glance seem to be a different order of magnitude when compared to addressing all infringing content on Twitter because the former is arguably easier to identify than the later. But such a characterization misses the mark for several reasons. First, and most obvious is that Dorsey could have but did not raise this in his response to Senator Tillis, choosing instead to ignore the censorship issue as if it never happened. Second, copyright owners seem willing to police their own copyright material, but cannot because Twitter frustrates their attempts by refusing to provide an API, which was provided by Twitter until a few years ago. Finally, the question about Section 230 immunity isn’t about scale. Platforms are either intended to be hands off, or they are not hands-off, and they are publishers. Twitter wants to have it both ways, as a platform when convenient for infringement purposes, and as a publisher when convenient to weed out political speech it does not like.

Twitter’s business model is perfectly fine. The company can choose to prevent conservatives from posting certain items or want to place warnings on Tweets based on fact-checking or suspend the accounts of media who refuse to delete Tweets they find objectionable. What is problematic, however, is acting like a publisher with respect to some content and then seeking to cloak themselves with the shroud of immunity provided by Section 230 for platforms.

To Whom Will Twitter Listen?

Senators Tillis, Coons and Hirono were not impressed with these responses. Indeed, their letter of December 28 quotes the testimony of Keith Kupferschmid of the Copyright Alliance: “if Twitter will not respond to even… a senator or to a chairman of a subcommittee’s request to show up and listen, how are we going to get them to listen to us or listen to the wedding photographer or the songwriter?” A very good question, and one that the Senate IP Subcommittee should be asking, as well as antitrust regulators around the country.

The Senators set forth 12 specific questions for Dorsey to answer in their letter. They are:

  1. We have heard that locating all instances of infringing content on your platform without access to Twitter’s API is difficult if not impossible. Does Twitter make access to its API available to content creators for purposes of enforcement of their intellectual property rights? If so, under what terms? If not, why not?
  2. Does Twitter charge for access to its API for purposes of enforcing intellectual property rights? If so, please provide a schedule of fees charged by Twitter.
  3. We heard testimony that “over the past two years, the music industry has sent Twitter notices of over 3 million infringements for over 20,000 works.” What steps has Twitter taken to ensure no unlicensed music is made available through its platform? Does Twitter employ any software—similar to YouTube’s ContentID or Facebook’s Rights Manager—to screen for copyrighted content? If so, please describe the software and its role in identifying, blocking, or notifying content owners about infringing material.
  4. Does Twitter seek licenses for the use of music on its platform? If so, under what circumstances? Has Twitter made efforts to negotiate license agreements with music publishers and record labels to ensure songwriters and artists are compensated?
  5. Please describe the processes available for submitting a takedown notice to Twitter. How many pieces of infringing content can be included in a single takedown notice? To the extent there are limits, please explain why.
  6. In response to Chairman Tillis’s questions, Twitter wrote that it has received 822,125 takedown notices since 2012. Please provide the number of takedown notices received and the number of tweets identified in those notices as including allegedly unauthorized content by year since 2012, including the number of notices received and tweets identified in 2020, if available.
  7. On average, how long does it take Twitter to remove infringing content in response to a takedown notice?
  8. In response to a question posed by Chairman Tillis regarding voluntary agreements Twitter has entered into with copyright owners to help combat copyright piracy on its platform, Twitter wrote that it “has many discussions with industry partners, some of which result in successful partnerships.” Please identify all such voluntary agreements Twitter entered into with copyright owners to help combat copyright piracy on its platform.
  9. Please provide our offices with a copy of Twitter’s repeat infringer policy.
  10. How many human content moderators does Twitter employ to address claims of copyright infringement on its platform?
  11. Does Twitter employ any proactive measures to combat copyright infringement on its platform? If it does, please describe those measures.
  12. We have learned of Twitter accounts dedicated to the distribution of leaks of pre-release media in the form of 20-30 second segments of audio or video recordings. These segments serve as advertisements for the availability of the full-length, unauthorized pre- release content on a pirate service. Do such accounts and tweets violate the Twitter Rules? Why or why not?

Is anyone going to hold their breath waiting for good faith answers from Twitter? I personally expect more of the same evasive, non-responsive verbosity from Twitter. Hopefully Twitter and Dorsey will prove me wrong, but having chosen to begin to police the platform opens up serious questions about the need for Section 230 immunity and whether Twitter and other platforms are employing policies that de facto monetize copyright infringement.

Unless and until political leaders say enough is enough, the tech oligarchs that increasingly tell Americans what is true, how to think, and will run roughshod over Congress and the United States. Bravo to Senators Tillis, Coons and Hirono for trying.

Image Source: Deposit Photos
Photography ID:42065515


Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author as of the time of publication and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of

Join the Discussion

13 comments so far.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    January 4, 2021 11:36 am


    You voice a common misconception from newer voices.

    The processing of this blog for comments (especially comments from new posters) is NOT on an ‘automatic’ basis.

    There is no ‘censorship’ – leastwise as you would indicate.

    There IS a tight control though on those who would speak falsely. Typically though, such are given a warning before any blocking occurs.

    One of the reasons for the delay and processing (I believe) is that this cite has many times come under cyber attack for its pro-innovation-protection views (the anti-software-patent folk are the ones that seek to spoil the dialogue).

  • [Avatar for annon-noyed]
    December 31, 2020 01:59 pm

    “Twitter has been enormously effective with respect to censoring conservative voices on its platform”

    Given that a couple of my posts have not appeared, Twitter isn’t the only one that has been effective with respect to censoring voices on its platform.

  • [Avatar for annon-noyed]
    December 31, 2020 12:02 pm

    “that this was SV’s goal.”

    Well, Peter Thiel’s goal at least.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    December 31, 2020 04:31 am

    The only other thing I will say about this is that SV dream has been trade secret laws that enable them to control their employees.

    Biden has already appointed Chien to get that dream realized.

    My bet is all that censorship had more to do with Chien being appointed to lead Biden’s IP changes, then anything else.

    Just remember that I called this. I said years ago that this would happen and that this was SV’s goal.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    December 30, 2020 04:32 pm

    Thanks Gene — my angle was more along the lines that by choosing as they have, they have already removed themselves from the 230 protection (they ARE publishers).

    Such is their choice — as they have made it.

    (You have an additional point here – the ‘in good faith’ prong should NAIL them if they were to try to BE publishers AND still seek the 230 shield.)

  • [Avatar for Anon-noyed]
    December 30, 2020 04:13 pm

    To quote Justice Jackson:
    “The choice is not between order and liberty. It is between liberty with order and anarchy without either. There is danger that, if the court does not temper its doctrinaire logic with a little practical wisdom, it will convert the constitutional Bill of Rights into a suicide pact.”
    Terminiello v. City of Chicago (1949) (dissent)

    There are many unwise business decisions that politicians have conspired to turn into ideological battles. To simply say this is a Section 230 issue is to blind oneself to the current political reality of the past several years that truth and facts do not matter, that a losing politician and his lickspittles can ignore the results of a free and fair election, that “sincerely-held religious beliefs” can be used to spread hate and disinformation, and so on.

    We live in an unprecedented age of assault upon reality.

    Define “legitimate media outlet.”

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    December 30, 2020 02:23 pm

    Anon @6…

    Section 230 presently says, in relevant part:

    “No provider… of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of… any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider… considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected…”

    I’d personally like to see someone (or entity such as the NY Post) test the applicability of Section 230 as it pertains to Twitter’s actions. Obviously, an argument can be made that Twitter has not acted in good faith. Twitter must be hanging their hat on the belief that the blocking of conservative posts from legitimate media outlets falls under the “otherwise objectionable” language. Still, at a minimum Section 230 needs to be either abolished as a relic given what Twitter and Facebook can obviously accomplish and the fact that they are by any fair definition “publishers”. Alternatively, I cannot understand the rationale for keeping “whether or not such material is constitutionally protected” or “otherwise objectionable”. One of those two phrases, at a minimum, must go. I’d delete both. Given platforms the ability to in good faith remove what is obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, or harassing, period.

    I’d also like to see some kind of waiver language. Allowing Holocaust deniers to tweet while censoring conservative voices clearly and unambiguously frustrates the purpose of Section 230 set out in the statute itself. See 230(b)(4) and 230(b)(5).

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    December 30, 2020 12:48 pm


    You wrote “Now the law just needs to change to force them to use those means they obviously have in order to protect content creator,”

    But did you mean instead that the (unchanged) law just needs to be applied differently now that Dorsey et al have chosen to act as a publisher (thereby falling into a different category, or application, of the (unchanged) law?

    Otherwise, I agree with your sentiments (and analysis).

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    December 30, 2020 11:45 am

    Night Writer,

    Are you referencing “Platforms are either intended to be hands off, or they are not hands-off, and they are publishers.”…?

    Does this bring to mind a certain other patent blog that had engaged in selective editing of comments (with those not supporting a certain narrative being expunged)…?

    Mind you, this type of editing is far diminished nowadays, but in the heyday of copious Malcolm Mooney propaganda, those seeking to rebut the propaganda often ran into difficulties of rather non-uniform (and selective) editing.

  • [Avatar for Gene Quinn]
    Gene Quinn
    December 30, 2020 11:32 am

    Anon-noyed @2…

    If Twitter wants to censor that is up to them. I personally think they have a right to do whatever they want to do. Of course, by censoring they are now a publisher and no longer entitled to immunity under Section 230.

    Twitter and Facebook really opened themselves up to enormous potential liability. It is a business decision that I think was unwise, and one that I can’t believe their shareholders will believe to be wise once all the dust settles and the plaintiffs attorneys get through with suing the platforms. There was a fundamental reason Section 230 was viewed as necessary and with Twitter and Facebook policing some content they have demonstrated the means are available if they choose to use such means. Now the law just needs to change to force them to use those means they obviously have in order to protect content creators.

  • [Avatar for Night Writer]
    Night Writer
    December 30, 2020 08:38 am

    It is pretty clear that Section 230 immunity should not apply if the company is monitoring the servers and removing content they don’t like but not content that infringes or that is defamatory.

  • [Avatar for Anon-noyed.]
    December 29, 2020 05:51 pm

    Dorsey should have told Tillis that Twitter is free to censor conservative voices because of Twitter’s sincerely-held religious beliefs. A conservative like Tillis understands that line of reasoning.

  • [Avatar for Anon]
    December 29, 2020 04:35 pm

    The question, however, was why Twitter is able to proactively on their own volition take down conservative political speech and why they treat content that infringes the intellectual property rights of American workers differently.

    The answer, of course, is because they want to.

    Outside of any (judgement) on the ‘want,’ is there an actual legal requirement at hand?

    There seems to be an implied one (that copyright is not ‘processed’ at all), but is that actually the case?

    Or is it more that the (private) company simply acts more favorably according to its own (private) wants?