5 ms·

The Internet Archive archives many thousands of user profile pages and other types of user-generated content that the OP may eventually realize is not really wi

The Internet Archive archives many thousands of user profile pages and other types of user-generated content that the OP may eventually realize is not really wise to have online. Things like the individual message board posting histories of private figures. The Internet Archive has no right to display these things, as they don't have a license from the content's author or the outlet that the content author posted on. There is no public interest served by continuing to display these things, as the poster is a non-noteworthy private person and was in all likelihood just posting nonsense. The OP can contact the message board and probably get them to delete the profiles if they don't have a deletion option already baked into their platform, but what about archives like the Internet Archive? Will they comply with takedown requests for such individual profiles, or fight them as well, pretending that there is some public interest served by keeping it online? Privacy is hard in the internet age.

arca_vorago 11y ago
We are talking about abuse of DMCA related to takedowns and copyright, and you are muddling the issue by stretching into privacy. Is privacy covered by DMCA? Is the DMCA something that an OP could use to request takedown of data from a site? If it is, then that would be what you should be speaking about, not grand visions of "how dare they copy and then host things that were on the public internet because some of those things might be privacy-sensitive!" To play devils advocate against myself, I have made mistakes in the earlier days of the internet, that I am glad the archives failed to keep. I do understand that there is a need for privacy friendly user sites, but I am sceptical about what tools are allowed to actually perform this structure. Right now, the internet is a threat to the power that be, which is why we will see an ever increasing attempt to legislate it into the ground. If we allow government corruption to seep into the internet anymore than it already is, the real concern will be one of censorship and propaganda, and user privacy is less to do with publicly posting things you shouldnt, but more to do with the corporate/government merger and data sharing that is going on around us. Loopholes everywhere for suppressing dissidents.
- icebraining 11y ago
  Is the DMCA something that an OP could use to request takedown of data from a site? Why not? Forum posts are copyrighted at the moment of creation just like any other work, and while one certainly gives a license (implied or not) to the forum, there's no reason why that license would extend to the IA.
  - arca_vorago 11y ago
    Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? So perhaps a new IA that only indexes creative commons licensed sites might be in order?
    - ghaff 11y ago
      >Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? IANAL, but basically yes. It's one reason why the IA respects robots.txt even retroactively. The reality is that, if something was posted publicly by a copyright holder and intended to be shared, the overwhelming majority of people/entities don't care that it's being archived somewhere but there's no particular exemption for something like the IA.
      - nitrogen 11y ago
        The IA is like a library. Libraries don't have to get special permission from book publishers to be libraries.
        Chlorus 11y ago
        Except it isn't. By this standard, book publishers would have to go pound sand if libraries started giving away infinitely many copies of their book.
        11y ago
BEEdwards 11y ago
Ummm If you post something in a public place, that is the opposite of private. You can't say something on live television and then ask them to delete the tape for privacy reasons, well you could but it would be dumb. You can't expect privacy when you have a meeting in a glass room I guess is what I'm saying.
- cookiecaper 11y ago
  If you're saying something on live television, you're probably a public figure. Nonetheless, you would own the copyright to any original statement you made on TV, and people couldn't just copy and replay it without getting legal permission. Most people who appear on TV probably sign documents granting the station licensing authority for any statement they make whilst appearing. When you are meeting in a glass room, you can't expect privacy in the moment, but if someone takes the intellectual property you shared in that glass room and puts it somewhere else, you certainly can expect them to respect the laws that allow you to require them to stop. If they don't, you should expect law enforcement and/or the courts to assist.
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >Nonetheless, you would own the copyright to any original statement you made on TV, and people couldn't just copy and replay it without getting legal permission. Most people who appear on TV probably sign documents granting the station licensing authority for any statement they make whilst appearing. The broadcaster would typically own the copyright to the video. I am sometimes given specific waivers to sign when I'm recorded at conferences and the like--mostly because rights to use material for marketing/commercial purposes are more restricted than the same material used for editorial. Frankly, most events etc. don't bother because the (correct) assumption is that people doing things in public aren't going to suddenly want to get rid of the content.
    - cookiecaper 11y ago
      Yes, they would own the copyright on the elements of the video that they produce. They wouldn't automatically own the copyright on any statement you made. The papers you sign would probably contain language much like the language on a random forum's ToS, discussing an irrevocable, non-exclusive, limited, global license to use any statement you make and/or to license the clips containing your statements out to partners. I've never been on TV, so I don't know. While it is possible that they try to get you to transfer the copyright to any statement you make, the courts are generally pretty dubious of such attempts. Also, giving a presentation to thousands of people, whether at a conference or over a broadcast, is at least perceived a lot differently than leaving a comment on a message board, especially if it's a small one or a niche community, so different things are shared. Suppose one is foolish as an 18-yr-old and posts on a forum most browsed by his friends, "Ha! I just got Lifelock and since I know you can't do anything to me when I have that, my SSN is 999-99-999. Just try to steal my identity!" Suppose the IA saves this statement. The OP would have a copyright interest in it and would be within his rights to point out that the IA has no privileges that entitle it to rehost that content, so please take it down. That is totally fair. There is no reason that copyright law should only be usable by media conglomerates that mostly use it to stop the spread of free culture and not by private individuals trying to clean up some of their past mistakes.
noonshine 11y ago
I haven't done my research yet, but the website I made when I was 15-16 is archived and needs to come down. I'm hoping being made by a minor helps? Anyone had experience taking stuff down or do you have to issue a DMCA?
- ghaff 11y ago
  It's hard to put genies back in bottles. If you still own the domain, my understanding is that the Internet Archive does respect robots.txt even retroactively. Otherwise, you can try doing a DMCA takedown but you may not have much luck as you no longer have any directly-established ownership over the content.

arca_vorago 11y ago

We are talking about abuse of DMCA related to takedowns and copyright, and you are muddling the issue by stretching into privacy. Is privacy covered by DMCA? Is the DMCA something that an OP could use to request takedown of data from a site? If it is, then that would be what you should be speaking about, not grand visions of "how dare they copy and then host things that were on the public internet because some of those things might be privacy-sensitive!" To play devils advocate against myself, I have made mistakes in the earlier days of the internet, that I am glad the archives failed to keep. I do understand that there is a need for privacy friendly user sites, but I am sceptical about what tools are allowed to actually perform this structure. Right now, the internet is a threat to the power that be, which is why we will see an ever increasing attempt to legislate it into the ground. If we allow government corruption to seep into the internet anymore than it already is, the real concern will be one of censorship and propaganda, and user privacy is less to do with publicly posting things you shouldnt, but more to do with the corporate/government merger and data sharing that is going on around us. Loopholes everywhere for suppressing dissidents.

icebraining 11y ago
Is the DMCA something that an OP could use to request takedown of data from a site? Why not? Forum posts are copyrighted at the moment of creation just like any other work, and while one certainly gives a license (implied or not) to the forum, there's no reason why that license would extend to the IA.
- arca_vorago 11y ago
  Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? So perhaps a new IA that only indexes creative commons licensed sites might be in order?
  - ghaff 11y ago
    >Interesting. So under this working theory, the entirety of the IA is fundamentally against copyright unless specifically allowed/released per site? IANAL, but basically yes. It's one reason why the IA respects robots.txt even retroactively. The reality is that, if something was posted publicly by a copyright holder and intended to be shared, the overwhelming majority of people/entities don't care that it's being archived somewhere but there's no particular exemption for something like the IA.
    - nitrogen 11y ago
      The IA is like a library. Libraries don't have to get special permission from book publishers to be libraries.
      - Chlorus 11y ago
        Except it isn't. By this standard, book publishers would have to go pound sand if libraries started giving away infinitely many copies of their book.
        11y ago

BEEdwards 11y ago

Ummm If you post something in a public place, that is the opposite of private. You can't say something on live television and then ask them to delete the tape for privacy reasons, well you could but it would be dumb. You can't expect privacy when you have a meeting in a glass room I guess is what I'm saying.

cookiecaper 11y ago
If you're saying something on live television, you're probably a public figure. Nonetheless, you would own the copyright to any original statement you made on TV, and people couldn't just copy and replay it without getting legal permission. Most people who appear on TV probably sign documents granting the station licensing authority for any statement they make whilst appearing. When you are meeting in a glass room, you can't expect privacy in the moment, but if someone takes the intellectual property you shared in that glass room and puts it somewhere else, you certainly can expect them to respect the laws that allow you to require them to stop. If they don't, you should expect law enforcement and/or the courts to assist.
- ghaff 11y ago
  >Nonetheless, you would own the copyright to any original statement you made on TV, and people couldn't just copy and replay it without getting legal permission. Most people who appear on TV probably sign documents granting the station licensing authority for any statement they make whilst appearing. The broadcaster would typically own the copyright to the video. I am sometimes given specific waivers to sign when I'm recorded at conferences and the like--mostly because rights to use material for marketing/commercial purposes are more restricted than the same material used for editorial. Frankly, most events etc. don't bother because the (correct) assumption is that people doing things in public aren't going to suddenly want to get rid of the content.
  - cookiecaper 11y ago
    Yes, they would own the copyright on the elements of the video that they produce. They wouldn't automatically own the copyright on any statement you made. The papers you sign would probably contain language much like the language on a random forum's ToS, discussing an irrevocable, non-exclusive, limited, global license to use any statement you make and/or to license the clips containing your statements out to partners. I've never been on TV, so I don't know. While it is possible that they try to get you to transfer the copyright to any statement you make, the courts are generally pretty dubious of such attempts. Also, giving a presentation to thousands of people, whether at a conference or over a broadcast, is at least perceived a lot differently than leaving a comment on a message board, especially if it's a small one or a niche community, so different things are shared. Suppose one is foolish as an 18-yr-old and posts on a forum most browsed by his friends, "Ha! I just got Lifelock and since I know you can't do anything to me when I have that, my SSN is 999-99-999. Just try to steal my identity!" Suppose the IA saves this statement. The OP would have a copyright interest in it and would be within his rights to point out that the IA has no privileges that entitle it to rehost that content, so please take it down. That is totally fair. There is no reason that copyright law should only be usable by media conglomerates that mostly use it to stop the spread of free culture and not by private individuals trying to clean up some of their past mistakes.

noonshine 11y ago

I haven't done my research yet, but the website I made when I was 15-16 is archived and needs to come down. I'm hoping being made by a minor helps? Anyone had experience taking stuff down or do you have to issue a DMCA?

ghaff 11y ago
It's hard to put genies back in bottles. If you still own the domain, my understanding is that the Internet Archive does respect robots.txt even retroactively. Otherwise, you can try doing a DMCA takedown but you may not have much luck as you no longer have any directly-established ownership over the content.