6 ms·

Neiher 'flaunting privacy' nor 'direct attack on individual privacy' are fair descriptions of any of the Archive's web collection policies. People who freely p

by gojomo 4y ago

Neiher 'flaunting privacy' nor 'direct attack on individual privacy' are fair descriptions of any of the Archive's web collection policies. People who freely publish information, to the worldwide public, on the 'World Wide Web' should reasonably expect all sorts of entities to collect, save, analyze, & repurpose that info, unless they take specific steps to discourage such access & use. The Archive's crawlers identify themselves, and collect things that are publicly linked, or specifically nominated-for-collection by library patrons or partners. Except in some focused specialized collection projects, they don't "log in" as any user, only visiting & collecting what's published freely to any anonymous person/organization/process. For material needing more privacy, websites always have the option to block any and all unwanted visitors/crawlers with a wide variety of standard techniques, like requiring logins or simple challenges that automated crawlers won't pass. And, as your linked articles report, the process for a later exclusion by request is pretty quick and simple. (The 2nd post concludes: "So, hats off to the Internet Archive for making the process smooth and relatively painless.") And, such exclusion does not require any sort of "DMCA request".

stubish 4y ago
This is victim blaming. In my jurisdiction, you retain copyright under any information you publish, even to the worldwide public. This means I can reasonably expect entities to collect, save, analyze and repurpose that info within reason, and without specific steps to discourage access & use. This is why there are laws such as 'fair use' and 'satire', because we wanted to extend what is considered reasonable use of public works. But redistributing copyrighted works without permission? Legally actionable, if you have the money and lawyers and access to the necessary courts. If this was software, such as free software license violations, people in this forum would be calling for the lawyers to nuke them from orbit. Thankfully DMCA should make the removal process easier now, especially in situations where control over the domain has been lost or being hosted by a third party. Although last I saw there were still artificial barriers, such as needing to list every single individual page needing to be taken down. But this is after the fact, after you discovered your reasonable expectations and privacy have been violated. And then you have to track down the other copies that IA illegally distributed your now-private and copyrighted information to, such as a few libraries around the world with similar projects.
- account42 4y ago
  You are arguing about copyright in a thread discussing accusations of privacy violations.
  - _ktx2 4y ago
    There is an overlap in the two. Copyright can be used as a defense against folk who believe, "Everything on the internet not behind authentication is commons". Often these folks point to books, magazines, etc in reference to their argument, which is certainly bad faith, but that's why copyright arguments come up. A reference to one such comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32150193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32150193
    - gojomo 4y ago
      Wait, why are books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, pamphlets, & flyers a bad faith analogy? Those are exactly what hundreds-of-years of copyright law, by explicit statute and court interpretation, have addressed. The precedents for private actors, and especially noncommercial entities like libraries & schools, to retain those copies, and to a large extent, reshare/redisplay them, are very strong. Further, by design, every delivery of content across the web necessarily creates copies at every network node, and perhaps multiple proxies/caches, on the way to the web browser. The web browser necessarily creates & displays a copy – and normally keeps one, at least for a little while for user convenience. Anyone choosing to core web protocols has already implicitly authorized lots of necessary copying. Why wouldn't the recipients of such display-copies, and especially non-profit libraries, have on the web the same assumed right to keep/transfer/format-shift/redisplay that freely-delivered copy, in the same way they've always had the right to do with copyrighted books/magazines/newspapers/newsletters/pamphlets/flyers? If copyright maximalists & DRM fans want a new right to remotely recall/destroy such copies – indefinitely, retroactively, and unlike the traditional copyright balancing-of-interests – they should make the case to lawmakers & courts for that, or use the technical measures already built-into the web for expressing such limits, and opting-out of the web's and copyright's defaults. You shouldn't let them simply assert that right without reasoning or a case for why it's better than tradition. Nor, allege criminality or 'bad-faith' against people just using the worldwide-web as it was designed, and enjoying readers' rights as they've been traditionally interpreted.

by gojomo 4y ago

stubish 4y ago

This is victim blaming. In my jurisdiction, you retain copyright under any information you publish, even to the worldwide public. This means I can reasonably expect entities to collect, save, analyze and repurpose that info within reason, and without specific steps to discourage access & use. This is why there are laws such as 'fair use' and 'satire', because we wanted to extend what is considered reasonable use of public works. But redistributing copyrighted works without permission? Legally actionable, if you have the money and lawyers and access to the necessary courts. If this was software, such as free software license violations, people in this forum would be calling for the lawyers to nuke them from orbit. Thankfully DMCA should make the removal process easier now, especially in situations where control over the domain has been lost or being hosted by a third party. Although last I saw there were still artificial barriers, such as needing to list every single individual page needing to be taken down. But this is after the fact, after you discovered your reasonable expectations and privacy have been violated. And then you have to track down the other copies that IA illegally distributed your now-private and copyrighted information to, such as a few libraries around the world with similar projects.

account42 4y ago
You are arguing about copyright in a thread discussing accusations of privacy violations.
- _ktx2 4y ago
  There is an overlap in the two. Copyright can be used as a defense against folk who believe, "Everything on the internet not behind authentication is commons". Often these folks point to books, magazines, etc in reference to their argument, which is certainly bad faith, but that's why copyright arguments come up. A reference to one such comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32150193 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32150193
  - gojomo 4y ago
    Wait, why are books, magazines, newspapers, newsletters, pamphlets, & flyers a bad faith analogy? Those are exactly what hundreds-of-years of copyright law, by explicit statute and court interpretation, have addressed. The precedents for private actors, and especially noncommercial entities like libraries & schools, to retain those copies, and to a large extent, reshare/redisplay them, are very strong. Further, by design, every delivery of content across the web necessarily creates copies at every network node, and perhaps multiple proxies/caches, on the way to the web browser. The web browser necessarily creates & displays a copy – and normally keeps one, at least for a little while for user convenience. Anyone choosing to core web protocols has already implicitly authorized lots of necessary copying. Why wouldn't the recipients of such display-copies, and especially non-profit libraries, have on the web the same assumed right to keep/transfer/format-shift/redisplay that freely-delivered copy, in the same way they've always had the right to do with copyrighted books/magazines/newspapers/newsletters/pamphlets/flyers? If copyright maximalists & DRM fans want a new right to remotely recall/destroy such copies – indefinitely, retroactively, and unlike the traditional copyright balancing-of-interests – they should make the case to lawmakers & courts for that, or use the technical measures already built-into the web for expressing such limits, and opting-out of the web's and copyright's defaults. You shouldn't let them simply assert that right without reasoning or a case for why it's better than tradition. Nor, allege criminality or 'bad-faith' against people just using the worldwide-web as it was designed, and enjoying readers' rights as they've been traditionally interpreted.