3 ms·

Is this even legal? How can sites host other ones' content, and that's ok? - Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web? - Is it because it's on the open

Is this even legal? How can sites host other ones' content, and that's ok? - Is it fair use because it's "archiving" the web? - Is it because it's on the open web and it's public domain? - Or is it illegal, and people do it because they can ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

mik1998 4y ago
Is caching illegal?
- 7952 4y ago
  Caching is a generic technology that can be used in lawful or unlawful ways.
- donohoe 4y ago
  What archive.ph does is not just caching, it is hosting. Technically it is illegal. Do I use it? Yes.
  - mik1998 4y ago
    How do you "cache" without "hosting"? What is the technical difference between those two acts?
    - navigate8310 4y ago
      Caching is parroting what the original poster publishes. If the OP asks not to index, you cease indexing. However, if you are purposeful "hosting," you may not accept and continue hosting, knowing all the legal consequences that may follow.
      - mik1998 4y ago
        Caching has nothing to do with indexing. If I set up an HTTP cache to serve cached websites on my network, it would be difficult for anyone to request to not cache the HTTP responses considering it is most likely they would not be aware of them at all. It is, however, exactly equivalent to what websites such as archive.ph are doing.
reggegg 4y ago
Archive.ph et al is run by a russian fellow so probably the third one, especially now that Russia doesn't seem to care about something like this at all
jrochkind1 4y ago
Is Firefox "reader" mode legal? Is Google cache legal? What about Internet Archive wayback machine archive? Is deleting your cookies legal? How about spoofing your user-agent? How about a browser plugin that automates what OP describes? In the case of caches like Google, Internet Archive, or `archive.today` (same thing as `archive.ph`)... probably, in the USA? If it winds up in court, we will find out, eventually. Simply reading anything on the web technically involves "making a copy" already, which is one reason it gets and has remained somewhat confusing and complex to determine what is or is not legal with regard to copying web content. You can't simply say "making a copy is not allowed".

mik1998 4y ago

Is caching illegal?

7952 4y ago
Caching is a generic technology that can be used in lawful or unlawful ways.
donohoe 4y ago
What archive.ph does is not just caching, it is hosting. Technically it is illegal. Do I use it? Yes.
- mik1998 4y ago
  How do you "cache" without "hosting"? What is the technical difference between those two acts?
  - navigate8310 4y ago
    Caching is parroting what the original poster publishes. If the OP asks not to index, you cease indexing. However, if you are purposeful "hosting," you may not accept and continue hosting, knowing all the legal consequences that may follow.
    - mik1998 4y ago
      Caching has nothing to do with indexing. If I set up an HTTP cache to serve cached websites on my network, it would be difficult for anyone to request to not cache the HTTP responses considering it is most likely they would not be aware of them at all. It is, however, exactly equivalent to what websites such as archive.ph are doing.

reggegg 4y ago

Archive.ph et al is run by a russian fellow so probably the third one, especially now that Russia doesn't seem to care about something like this at all

jrochkind1 4y ago

Is Firefox "reader" mode legal? Is Google cache legal? What about Internet Archive wayback machine archive? Is deleting your cookies legal? How about spoofing your user-agent? How about a browser plugin that automates what OP describes? In the case of caches like Google, Internet Archive, or `archive.today` (same thing as `archive.ph`)... probably, in the USA? If it winds up in court, we will find out, eventually. Simply reading anything on the web technically involves "making a copy" already, which is one reason it gets and has remained somewhat confusing and complex to determine what is or is not legal with regard to copying web content. You can't simply say "making a copy is not allowed".