4 ms·

I believe that policy to be morally wrong. If a site WAS accessible then that old version should continue to be until an active legal tool is used to request t

I believe that policy to be morally wrong. If a site WAS accessible then that old version should continue to be until an active legal tool is used to request the offline archiving rather than free access as it was at the time of observation.

blackflame7000 7y ago
Yea but I can't just copy a website and start hosting my own version for numerous copyright reasons even if it is just to archive. I can't for example torrent a bunch of movies and store them for the purpose of "archiving"
- ticmasta 7y ago
  Actually, a library is a specific legal context that does allow it to do many things similar to what you're describing. It can't steal movies for archiving, but it certainly can purchase and share legally procured copies. Digital sharing is an admittedly more complex minefield...
  - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
    In USA. I assume that's where you're talking about. In UK certain libraries can archive (British Library) following a recent change in the law, IIRC. People wanting to access the archive may only do so by physically visiting the library. AFAICT archive.org are flouting copyright law around the World already, they should continue to be cautious about assuming rights IMO.
    - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
      Archive.org is an accredited library.
      - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
        Yep, that works for USA law AFAIR, but USA Fair Use is exceptionally liberal compared to other copyright regimes.
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    While libraries do have special protections, sharing legally procured physical copies is more broadly protected due to the first-sale doctrine. However, libraries do have an exemption to the ban on renting music recordings (after the broad availability of audio cassette recorders, congress made renting music illegal, but libraries and schools can still loan them out).
dTal 7y ago
That's exactly what they do. They are treating "robots.txt" as an "active legal tool". You could argue that they should make it harder, but I doubt they want to find themselves in court over every little thing. Better to make it easy to block to avoid liability, and also easy to allow that block to lapse - if they forced you to get a court order to hide information, then the information would be gone forever.
- mjevans 7y ago
  An active legal tool might be as little as requiring an official claim of copyright and a related Cease and Desist to be mailed physically to them. That would prevent the issue of domain squatters with robots.txt files in most cases, and offer the public a means of challenging such ownership requests (and freeing up the content on archive.org) if they desire.
maxerickson 7y ago
Well get to it then.

blackflame7000 7y ago

Yea but I can't just copy a website and start hosting my own version for numerous copyright reasons even if it is just to archive. I can't for example torrent a bunch of movies and store them for the purpose of "archiving"

ticmasta 7y ago
Actually, a library is a specific legal context that does allow it to do many things similar to what you're describing. It can't steal movies for archiving, but it certainly can purchase and share legally procured copies. Digital sharing is an admittedly more complex minefield...
- pbhjpbhj 7y ago
  In USA. I assume that's where you're talking about. In UK certain libraries can archive (British Library) following a recent change in the law, IIRC. People wanting to access the archive may only do so by physically visiting the library. AFAICT archive.org are flouting copyright law around the World already, they should continue to be cautious about assuming rights IMO.
  - kevin_thibedeau 7y ago
    Archive.org is an accredited library.
    - pbhjpbhj 7y ago
      Yep, that works for USA law AFAIR, but USA Fair Use is exceptionally liberal compared to other copyright regimes.
- aidenn0 7y ago
  While libraries do have special protections, sharing legally procured physical copies is more broadly protected due to the first-sale doctrine. However, libraries do have an exemption to the ban on renting music recordings (after the broad availability of audio cassette recorders, congress made renting music illegal, but libraries and schools can still loan them out).

dTal 7y ago

That's exactly what they do. They are treating "robots.txt" as an "active legal tool". You could argue that they should make it harder, but I doubt they want to find themselves in court over every little thing. Better to make it easy to block to avoid liability, and also easy to allow that block to lapse - if they forced you to get a court order to hide information, then the information would be gone forever.

mjevans 7y ago
An active legal tool might be as little as requiring an official claim of copyright and a related Cease and Desist to be mailed physically to them. That would prevent the issue of domain squatters with robots.txt files in most cases, and offer the public a means of challenging such ownership requests (and freeing up the content on archive.org) if they desire.

maxerickson 7y ago

Well get to it then.