15 ms·

The issue is that if this becomes widespread then we're going to get into copyright claims against the wayback machine. When I write content it is mine. I don't

The issue is that if this becomes widespread then we're going to get into copyright claims against the wayback machine. When I write content it is mine. I don't even let Facebook crawlers index it because I don't want it appearing on their platform. I'm happy to have wayback machine archive it, but that's with the understanding that it is a backup, not an authoritative or primary source. Ideally, links would be able to handle 404s and fallback. Like we can do with images and srcset in html. That way if my content goes away we have a backup. I can still write updates to a blog piece or add translations that people send in and everyone benefits from the dynamic nature of content, while still being able to either fallback or verify content at the time it was publish via the wayback machine.

alisonkisk 6y ago
Perhaps the wayback machine can help fix that by telling users to visit the authoritative site and demanding a confirmation clickthrough before showing the archived content.
- bartread 6y ago
  > Perhaps the wayback machine can help fix that by telling users to visit the authoritative site and demanding a confirmation clickthrough before showing the archived content. I'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic or serious. People on here (rightly) spend a lot of time complaining about how user experience on the web is becoming terrible due to ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, endless cookie banners, consent forms, and miscellaneous GDPR nonsense, all of which get in the way of whatever it is you're trying to read or watch, and all of it on top of the more run-of-the-mill UX snafus with which people casually litter their sites. Your idea boils down to adding another layer of consent clicking to the mess, to implement a semi-manual redirect through the WayBackMachine for every link clicked. That's ridiculous. I have to believe you're being ironic because nobody could seriously think this is a good idea.
  - CarCooler 6y ago
    Agree, cut the clutter just like it is simple on the HN website.
headmelted 6y ago
But it’s also not guaranteed to be consistent. What if you don’t delete the content but just change it? (I.e. what if your opinions change or you’re pressured to edit information by a third party?).
- 3pt14159 6y ago
  I addressed this. > I can still write updates to a blog piece or add translations that people send in and everyone benefits from the dynamic nature of content, while still being able to either fallback or verify content at the time it was publish via the wayback machine. Updates are usually good. Sometimes you need to verify what was said though, and for that wayback machine works. I agree it would be nice if there was a technical way to support both, but for the average web request it's better to link to the source.
notriddle 6y ago
There already have been copyright claims against The Wayback Machine. They've been responding to it by allowing site owners to use robots.txt to remove their content.
silicon2401 6y ago
I politely claim that your view is unrealistic (for published content). You may legally own it, but the instant you make content available to a party other than yourself, you lose any guarantee that you control it. Like I said in my earlier comment, if I find your site and like it, it gets downloaded and saved into my archive. Somebody else could trivially copy and paste or screenshot it to facebook. I feel similarly to you: I want to own and control what I create. However I'm also realistic about the consequences of publishing it, so I don't publish anything I create beyond personally showing stuff to people who are close to me, and preferably from my own equipment directly. Unless you're doing the same, you don't actually control your content. This may seem like a neurotic approach, but if you actually care about your content, it's not. It's not difficult to find cases of content being stolen and reused without the creator knowing; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZQoN6UrEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZQoN6UrEw

alisonkisk 6y ago

Perhaps the wayback machine can help fix that by telling users to visit the authoritative site and demanding a confirmation clickthrough before showing the archived content.

bartread 6y ago
> Perhaps the wayback machine can help fix that by telling users to visit the authoritative site and demanding a confirmation clickthrough before showing the archived content. I'm trying to figure out if you're being ironic or serious. People on here (rightly) spend a lot of time complaining about how user experience on the web is becoming terrible due to ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, endless cookie banners, consent forms, and miscellaneous GDPR nonsense, all of which get in the way of whatever it is you're trying to read or watch, and all of it on top of the more run-of-the-mill UX snafus with which people casually litter their sites. Your idea boils down to adding another layer of consent clicking to the mess, to implement a semi-manual redirect through the WayBackMachine for every link clicked. That's ridiculous. I have to believe you're being ironic because nobody could seriously think this is a good idea.
- CarCooler 6y ago
  Agree, cut the clutter just like it is simple on the HN website.

headmelted 6y ago

But it’s also not guaranteed to be consistent. What if you don’t delete the content but just change it? (I.e. what if your opinions change or you’re pressured to edit information by a third party?).

3pt14159 6y ago
I addressed this. > I can still write updates to a blog piece or add translations that people send in and everyone benefits from the dynamic nature of content, while still being able to either fallback or verify content at the time it was publish via the wayback machine. Updates are usually good. Sometimes you need to verify what was said though, and for that wayback machine works. I agree it would be nice if there was a technical way to support both, but for the average web request it's better to link to the source.

notriddle 6y ago

There already have been copyright claims against The Wayback Machine. They've been responding to it by allowing site owners to use robots.txt to remove their content.

silicon2401 6y ago

I politely claim that your view is unrealistic (for published content). You may legally own it, but the instant you make content available to a party other than yourself, you lose any guarantee that you control it. Like I said in my earlier comment, if I find your site and like it, it gets downloaded and saved into my archive. Somebody else could trivially copy and paste or screenshot it to facebook. I feel similarly to you: I want to own and control what I create. However I'm also realistic about the consequences of publishing it, so I don't publish anything I create beyond personally showing stuff to people who are close to me, and preferably from my own equipment directly. Unless you're doing the same, you don't actually control your content. This may seem like a neurotic approach, but if you actually care about your content, it's not. It's not difficult to find cases of content being stolen and reused without the creator knowing; e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZQoN6UrEw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7ZQoN6UrEw