2 ms·

>You cannot ignore copyright, and robots.txt is exactly what I would use if I didn't want something archived by an organisation I have nothing to do with. AFAI

>You cannot ignore copyright, and robots.txt is exactly what I would use if I didn't want something archived by an organisation I have nothing to do with. AFAICT this page is a reaction to an archive.org policy of respecting robots.txt retroactively - e.g. oldwebsite.com runs from 1999-2009, domain expires in 2010, gets bought in 2011 and the new owners add a robots.txt disallowing IA. The archive.org copies for 10 years are now inaccessible.

shakna 10y ago
True, but it is archive.org protecting their own work from being shutdown for breaching copyright. One group has respect for authorship, and one does not. It may not be the most palatable solution, but hardly a need for a tantrum, and intent to ignore well established rights.
- CM30 10y ago
  Wonder if you could argue that the Archive.org version is ignoring or misrepresenting copyright as well. After all, if they block content from a previous site on the same domain, maybe that could be read as them saying the current domain owner owns content from previous iterations. Or something. Which would interesting to see the legal reaction to. Also makes me wonder if a solution could be implemented where domain owners can explicitly give permission for their work to be archived, with the assumption that all content from the current 'iteration' of the site remains accessible, even if the domain changes ownership. So I could "I give the Internet Archive full permission to archive DomainA.com", so the archive keeps said info accessible even if the domain is sold to someone else/expires.
- pjc50 10y ago
  Should material be lost forever out of "respect for authorship"?
  - krapp 10y ago
    Arguably, if I own the material, I should have the right to deny it to the historical record if I choose. Then again, Kafka wanted his unpublished works burned after his death - and the world is arguably a better place for having ignored his wishes.

shakna 10y ago

True, but it is archive.org protecting their own work from being shutdown for breaching copyright. One group has respect for authorship, and one does not. It may not be the most palatable solution, but hardly a need for a tantrum, and intent to ignore well established rights.

CM30 10y ago
Wonder if you could argue that the Archive.org version is ignoring or misrepresenting copyright as well. After all, if they block content from a previous site on the same domain, maybe that could be read as them saying the current domain owner owns content from previous iterations. Or something. Which would interesting to see the legal reaction to. Also makes me wonder if a solution could be implemented where domain owners can explicitly give permission for their work to be archived, with the assumption that all content from the current 'iteration' of the site remains accessible, even if the domain changes ownership. So I could "I give the Internet Archive full permission to archive DomainA.com", so the archive keeps said info accessible even if the domain is sold to someone else/expires.
pjc50 10y ago
Should material be lost forever out of "respect for authorship"?
- krapp 10y ago
  Arguably, if I own the material, I should have the right to deny it to the historical record if I choose. Then again, Kafka wanted his unpublished works burned after his death - and the world is arguably a better place for having ignored his wishes.