3 ms·

>>...we declined to take down the archives. OK, the way I read, author--one way or another--asked for her blog not being hosted by Wayback machine and they dec

>>...we declined to take down the archives. OK, the way I read, author--one way or another--asked for her blog not being hosted by Wayback machine and they declined. It's my work, as long as I can verify that I wrote, they should take it down or be sued for copyright infringement. I get the "we're archiving the internet," but if I want that post where I said Google is evil taken down because I have a G job interview a week from now, they should take it down. Another thing, just because I have a page online, doesn't mean that I gave them consent to archive it for eternity. I get the robots.txt, but if you're archiving you should ask for permission, they are a gazillion robots out there.

skywhopper 9y ago
The Internet Archive would be completely unworkable if they had to ask for permission first. So would the Internet for that matter. Anyway, the whole point is to preserve things that wouldn't otherwise be preserved for the future. The Internet Archive folks are thinking in timespans of centuries, not months or years. The service they are providing to current and future researchers and historians is invaluable.
IAmEveryone 9y ago
Section 108 exception to copyright protection for public ally-accessible archives: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108
- ghaff 9y ago
  That exception is for physical works within a library. It's basically the only thing that makes libraries/archives special relative to you or I with respect to copyright.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
prepend 9y ago
The author released content for public consumption. While author has copyright, it’s not legal to revoke usage rights years after the fact. Not a lawyer, but think it’s related to usage rights under a copyright. Imagine an author giving you a copy of the book and then 15 years later coming to your home library and asking for it back. It’s cool to not post publicly or to restrict access. But releasing and then yanking doesn’t make sense.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

skywhopper 9y ago

The Internet Archive would be completely unworkable if they had to ask for permission first. So would the Internet for that matter. Anyway, the whole point is to preserve things that wouldn't otherwise be preserved for the future. The Internet Archive folks are thinking in timespans of centuries, not months or years. The service they are providing to current and future researchers and historians is invaluable.

IAmEveryone 9y ago

Section 108 exception to copyright protection for public ally-accessible archives: https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108 https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/17/108

ghaff 9y ago
That exception is for physical works within a library. It's basically the only thing that makes libraries/archives special relative to you or I with respect to copyright.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

prepend 9y ago

The author released content for public consumption. While author has copyright, it’s not legal to revoke usage rights years after the fact. Not a lawyer, but think it’s related to usage rights under a copyright. Imagine an author giving you a copy of the book and then 15 years later coming to your home library and asking for it back. It’s cool to not post publicly or to restrict access. But releasing and then yanking doesn’t make sense.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]