4 ms·

The way I understand it, part of the core value prop of Quora is that writers own their own content distribution. If you want to post an answer on Quora, and re

The way I understand it, part of the core value prop of Quora is that writers own their own content distribution. If you want to post an answer on Quora, and re-post it on your own blog, that's fantastic. If you want to post on Quora and mark it _not for reproduction_, that's totally your choice. If you think of it this way, it makes sense that Quora is not letting their content get automatically distributed, since once it goes to Archive.org, it's no longer under the users' control to revoke access to the answer at any time. Not only do they not claim to own your content, they don't even let it propagate without express permission from you, the author. Taking a stance like this just gains trust from authors. If you want your writing to get mass distribution, it's up to you to distribute it. If you want it to be archived, publish it in multiple places. I don't necessarily agree with it, and I've pretty much stopped writing on Quora for a number of reasons, but I see where they're coming from. It might be the best way for them to get the trust of some pretty high-status figures to post honest answers on their platform.

cjbprime 12y ago
> If you want to post on Quora and mark it _not for reproduction_, that's totally your choice. If you think of it this way, it makes sense that Quora is not letting their content get automatically distributed, since once it goes to Archive.org, it's no longer under the users' control to revoke access to the answer at any time. This would be a totally reasonable explanation if copyright law didn't exist, but it does. Content you create is already marked "not for reproduction", and if someone -- including the Internet Archive! -- reproduces it without your permission, you are legally entitled to ask them to stop. The Internet Archive won't even make you involve a lawyer.
- konklone 12y ago
  > and if someone -- including the Internet Archive! -- reproduces it without your permission, you are legally entitled to ask them to stop. The Internet Archive won't even make you involve a lawyer. That's right. And this is important, because the Archive, like everyone else, is subject to copyright law. What Quora is asking for is something more: an API that allows them to go in, without any sort of human process or judgment, and sync up the Archive's records with what Quora wants those records to be. That's much different, and much worse.
  - webmaven 12y ago
    Hey, I'm the random guy that asked you to answer on Quora. How I found you isn't very mysterious, I just asked all the folks listed here: http://18f.gsa.gov http://18f.gsa.gov if I could easily identify a Quora profile. I asked because a friend of mine recently joined 18F, I like what your team is doing, so I created the question as an attempt to get more attention for you guys. Just consider the resulting page a form of advertising ephemera. Sites on the Internet should aspire to be more, but Quora doesn't.
    - konklone 12y ago
      > Hey, I'm the random guy that asked you to answer on Quora. How I found you isn't very mysterious, I just asked all the folks listed here: http://18f.gsa.gov http://18f.gsa.gov if I could easily identify a Quora profile. And hopefully it's clear in my post that I'm really glad you did! :) It really is a good artifact -- which is exactly why I get so mad that it's not being preserved the way it should be.
      - webmaven 12y ago
        Oh good, so we're still cool. :-)
  - nimblegorilla 12y ago
    You are just being an exploitative bully. Why should the Archive get to decide how every other website on the internet works? When people post on Quora they can also post somewhere that does get indexed by the Archive. Or they can keep it private to Quora. > What Quora is asking for is something more: an API that allows them to go in, without any sort of human process or judgment, and sync up the Archive's records with what Quora wants those records to be Does anyone else realize the self entitlement in your post? That which you so adamantly oppose giving to Quora is exactly what you desire from them: an API that allows the Archive to go in, without any sort of human process or judgement, and sync up the Archive's records with what the Archive wants those records to be.
    - 12y ago
- hosh 12y ago
  Copyright laws doesn't prevent reproduction. It doesn't mark anything "not for reproduction". It simply gives authors the right to sue.
  - dredmorbius 12y ago
    It legally constrains unlimited reproduction. Since the 1976 act (in the U.S.), the default state of _any_ work is "protected", with all rights reserved to the author (or copyright holder), with very, very limited exceptions.
idlewords 12y ago
This is not correct. Archive.org will take things down retroactively when asked.

cjbprime 12y ago

> If you want to post on Quora and mark it _not for reproduction_, that's totally your choice. If you think of it this way, it makes sense that Quora is not letting their content get automatically distributed, since once it goes to Archive.org, it's no longer under the users' control to revoke access to the answer at any time. This would be a totally reasonable explanation if copyright law didn't exist, but it does. Content you create is already marked "not for reproduction", and if someone -- including the Internet Archive! -- reproduces it without your permission, you are legally entitled to ask them to stop. The Internet Archive won't even make you involve a lawyer.

konklone 12y ago
> and if someone -- including the Internet Archive! -- reproduces it without your permission, you are legally entitled to ask them to stop. The Internet Archive won't even make you involve a lawyer. That's right. And this is important, because the Archive, like everyone else, is subject to copyright law. What Quora is asking for is something more: an API that allows them to go in, without any sort of human process or judgment, and sync up the Archive's records with what Quora wants those records to be. That's much different, and much worse.
- webmaven 12y ago
  Hey, I'm the random guy that asked you to answer on Quora. How I found you isn't very mysterious, I just asked all the folks listed here: http://18f.gsa.gov http://18f.gsa.gov if I could easily identify a Quora profile. I asked because a friend of mine recently joined 18F, I like what your team is doing, so I created the question as an attempt to get more attention for you guys. Just consider the resulting page a form of advertising ephemera. Sites on the Internet should aspire to be more, but Quora doesn't.
  - konklone 12y ago
    > Hey, I'm the random guy that asked you to answer on Quora. How I found you isn't very mysterious, I just asked all the folks listed here: http://18f.gsa.gov http://18f.gsa.gov if I could easily identify a Quora profile. And hopefully it's clear in my post that I'm really glad you did! :) It really is a good artifact -- which is exactly why I get so mad that it's not being preserved the way it should be.
    - webmaven 12y ago
      Oh good, so we're still cool. :-)
- nimblegorilla 12y ago
  You are just being an exploitative bully. Why should the Archive get to decide how every other website on the internet works? When people post on Quora they can also post somewhere that does get indexed by the Archive. Or they can keep it private to Quora. > What Quora is asking for is something more: an API that allows them to go in, without any sort of human process or judgment, and sync up the Archive's records with what Quora wants those records to be Does anyone else realize the self entitlement in your post? That which you so adamantly oppose giving to Quora is exactly what you desire from them: an API that allows the Archive to go in, without any sort of human process or judgement, and sync up the Archive's records with what the Archive wants those records to be.
  - 12y ago
hosh 12y ago
Copyright laws doesn't prevent reproduction. It doesn't mark anything "not for reproduction". It simply gives authors the right to sue.
- dredmorbius 12y ago
  It legally constrains unlimited reproduction. Since the 1976 act (in the U.S.), the default state of _any_ work is "protected", with all rights reserved to the author (or copyright holder), with very, very limited exceptions.

idlewords 12y ago

This is not correct. Archive.org will take things down retroactively when asked.