6 ms·

They could probably keep them running for the price of some football pundit's yearly salary.

• pbhjpbhj 16y ago
  They could release on a free document license or CC-BY or similar and the content would appear on hundreds of websites. Indeed as the idea is money-saving and efficiencies they should archive the lot (about half a days wages, at first, and maybe a single HDD) and then sell of the domains at auction lock-stock - deleting them is silly whilst they have any value at all. They could give the domains to me I'll maintain them.
  • notahacker 16y ago
    I'm extremely tempted to perform a Reocities style rescue job and handle the takedown notices as and when they come. Might not work for some of the interactive stuff but at least the text can be saved.
    • imajes 16y ago
      Already started. Email me if you want to help (in my profile).
      • pbhjpbhj 16y ago
        You realise of course that this is unlawful copyright infringement?
        • imajes 16y ago
          Sure. but the goal is to get an archive of it first, we can deal with putting it online at the right moment.
        • msg 16y ago
          When you're on your deathbed, you're not going to tell your grandchildren "I sure wish I had upheld the strict letter of copyright law on the internet more." But you might say "remember that time I saved the BBC from itself?" And like Big Fish, it will be almost true.
          • pbhjpbhj 16y ago
            That may or may not be true, however it is still copyright infringement. It doesn't matter incidentally if you copy it solely for personal use - stopping a rights holder from being an idiot is not a given exclusion. I assume that the downvoters can explain how this is not infringing or how I'm not adding to the thread by noting this fact that some may not wholly realise?
            • peterstjohn 16y ago
              This is true, but the BBC were extremely grateful for the copyright infringement that has seen the rescue of Q, Doctor Who, and countless other series - they may come to see that again (and to be honest, the chances of the BBC suing are probably very slight).
            • Cushman 16y ago
              Can't speak for anyone else, but I downvoted for the condescending tone more than the opinion.
              • pbhjpbhj 16y ago
                Could you explain how you find it patronising - is it that I'm pointing out they're breaking the law if they use this specific font [file] without a license but you think this is obvious, or that I'm assuming they know they're committing tortfeasance when you feel it's not obvious. There are of course other possibilities, hence why I posed the question, they might be outside the Berne Convention/TRIPS countries and not be bound by copyright law, for example.
                • Cushman 16y ago
        • SoftwareMaven 16y ago
          It is only copyright infringement if they re-publish. Just getting an archive is not infringement, otherwise, you'd be infringing every time you view the site with your browser.
        • gwern 16y ago
          Most people, as they grow up, learn the difference between what is moral and what is legal. Chin up, champ, you'll figure that out someday, and maybe the appropriate use of condescension too!
      • JonnieCache 16y ago
        Gentlemen, start your spiders!
  • Tycho 16y ago
    I suppose a lot of the content might not be entirely theirs to license, and it would be difficult to sift through it all and determine.
  • semanticist 16y ago
    There's no actual domains involved - when the BBC talk about 'top level domains', they mean 'bbc.co.uk/something'.