4 ms·

> What's wrong with setting up a mirror at archive.org? After all, they /are/ a library, so they get some immunity from copyright. Or can we not do that? Prett

> What's wrong with setting up a mirror at archive.org? After all, they /are/ a library, so they get some immunity from copyright. Or can we not do that? Pretty sure no-one gets "immunity from copyright," at list not to the point where they could mirror Sci-hub with impunity (at least no on in the US). I'd very surprised if archive.org did not respond to DMCA take-down requests, etc.

userbinator 10y ago
On the other hand, I believe I've read before that DMCA takedowns only cause content to become inaccessible publicly but not actually deleted, which in the case of SciHub sort of defeats the purpose; however, it does mean archive.org retains an "archive" of the content, presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change.
- uxp 10y ago
  > I've read before that DMCA takedowns only cause content to become inaccessible publicly but not actually deleted This is a violation of the takedown request, and can result in harsher penalties for the host. It's not a great example, but MegaUpload was faulted for doing just that: Removing the link between a url and the content that url pointed to. Granted they did deduplication so there could be other links from other urls pointed to the same "illegal" content, which is what the USA went after them for, but the fact remains that it's a pretty clear grey area whether or not the host can retain that data after someone claims rights to have it removed for their own future benefit.
  - detaro 10y ago
    Looking at the text of the law, it always uses "remove, or disable access to" or similar language: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
- gherkin0 10y ago
  > presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change. Then what's the point? The whole point of Sci-hub is to distribute copyrighted papers, "archive" would be inaccessible until it is useless.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    The point would be to keep an archive of scientific papers, but prevent access to them in case SciHub goes down.

userbinator 10y ago

On the other hand, I believe I've read before that DMCA takedowns only cause content to become inaccessible publicly but not actually deleted, which in the case of SciHub sort of defeats the purpose; however, it does mean archive.org retains an "archive" of the content, presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change.

uxp 10y ago
> I've read before that DMCA takedowns only cause content to become inaccessible publicly but not actually deleted This is a violation of the takedown request, and can result in harsher penalties for the host. It's not a great example, but MegaUpload was faulted for doing just that: Removing the link between a url and the content that url pointed to. Granted they did deduplication so there could be other links from other urls pointed to the same "illegal" content, which is what the USA went after them for, but the fact remains that it's a pretty clear grey area whether or not the host can retain that data after someone claims rights to have it removed for their own future benefit.
- detaro 10y ago
  Looking at the text of the law, it always uses "remove, or disable access to" or similar language: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/512
gherkin0 10y ago
> presumably until its copyright expires or copyright laws change. Then what's the point? The whole point of Sci-hub is to distribute copyrighted papers, "archive" would be inaccessible until it is useless.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  The point would be to keep an archive of scientific papers, but prevent access to them in case SciHub goes down.