3 ms·
If someone wanted to sue the Archive, they would probably argue that every time archive.org serves a file they are making a copy... which is true, after all, if
by biztos 10y ago
If someone wanted to sue the Archive, they would probably argue that every time archive.org serves a file they are making a copy... which is true, after all, if anything reproduced digitally is a "copy" in that sense.
Nice point about the lack of implied permission in copyright. It makes me think robots.txt probably doesn't have any meaning one way or the other legally, but is just a community thing.
- ghaff 10y ago>If someone wanted to sue the Archive, they would probably argue that every time archive.org serves a file they are making a copy... which is true, after all, if anything reproduced digitally is a "copy" in that sense. It absolutely could be/would be argued. Otherwise an arbitrary library or archive--oh, lets give it a name like Google Books--would have the right to make digital copies of physical books available to the public. Obviously Google tried to do this and (although the case was/is complicated) they weren't allowed to do this unconditionally. ADDED: Or, heck, any site could declare themselves an archive and offer up ripped CDs to the public.
- icebraining 10y ago> If someone wanted to sue the Archive, they would probably argue that every time archive.org serves a file they are making a copy... which is true, after all, if anything reproduced digitally is a "copy" in that sense. It's more than a theoretical point - that each "serving" of a file is a copy is well established legally. In fact, even loading a program to RAM was considered a copy, per MAI Systems Corp. v. Peak Computer, until Congress made an explicit exception.
- zerocrates 10y agoAnd that exception only applies for people doing maintenance on your computer.