Technology

58133 readers

4709 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

Follow the lemmy.world rules.
Only tech related content.
Be excellent to each another!
Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
Politics threads may be removed.
No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

329

Maybe It Should Be Illegal To Instantly Delete A Website's Archives - Aftermath (aftermath.site)

submitted 2 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

92 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

You don’t have any rights to do anything else with it.

That's patently false. At a minimum, I can quote parts of your content, just as you can quote smaller portions of any published text anywhere, you don't have to ask the publisher or author for permission. It's also ridiculous and impossible to control, the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there? I doubt you're writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

Incorrect. Your browser made it do that. How that data is accessed and displayed is not controlled by me.

You're arguing semantics that really don't make any difference. The display is irrelevant, because the data by itself is stored on my computer before it is displayed. That data is what you've put up online to be accessed.

Owning the CD grants you a license to the content on that CD. That’s about as good as ownership gets there. They own the CD/license. As long as that CD exists/works. You don’t gain that same right by simply visiting a website.

I fail to see the difference between getting a CD with some data (buying it or being given for free, as e.g. a gift) and being sent some data online for free. More importantly - says who? Does copyright law say this about websites?

If an artist makes a painting… and posts a picture of it. They have no rights to the painting anymore? They deserve no ownership/pay for what they’ve done?

This simply doesn't follow from what I've written. They certainly retain the rights to the painting. Besides, "deserving pay" depends on completely different factors than the ones we're discussing, usually artists sell the actual object, the painting. A digital reproduction is, as far as most people care (I think), merely an informative reproduction, and not the real thing. Stuff that's posted online for free is... free. It wasn't intended to be made money with directly.

Your final paragraph is really confusing me, you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft, which I'm pretty sure is not true (I've followed the lawsuits against IA for a while and don't remember anyone invoking that term). And at this point I don't know what "theft" is even supposed to mean to you or to anyone else, and what was the point of the discussion anyway. Maybe I should reread the whole discussion carefully all over again, but I'm on my phone and it's all giving me a headache.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

the content is on my private machine already, how can any law be relevant or exerted upon what I do there?

So child porn is okay then? You would already have it on your system and got it for free on your private machine!

I doubt you’re writing this comment on the basis of your knowledge of copyright law.

I doubt you are either. Yet we're both here.

you seem to be saying that Wayback Machine is also committing theft

It does... on paper... A lot. https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/ To the point it's losing lawsuits over exactly that.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So child porn is okay then? You would already have it on your system

You'd have to look for it, knowing fully well that it is illegal to produce in the first place and distribute to others, access it online, and then deliberately retain it. It's not really the same as something that's legal to produce and distribute (it is certainly legal for me to view your site). You wouldn't "already" have it.

I doubt you are either.

Well I've read some copyright laws, had to solve some issues regarding usage of copyrighted works, etc. Nothing that makes me an expert, but I'm not talking wholly out of my ass either.

It does… on paper… A lot. https://time.com/6266147/internet-archive-copyright-infringement-books-lawsuit/ To the point it’s losing lawsuits over exactly that.

That's not Wayback Machine per se, that's Internet Archive's book scanning and "digital lending" system, which was most definitely doing legally questionable (and stupid) things even to an amateur eye. However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 2 weeks ago

You wouldn’t “already” have it.

You've missed the point. Simply having something on your harddrive is already something the law does care about. It simply depends on the something.

Well I’ve read some copyright laws

So have I. Because I had access to an exception under it in my prior job. Seems like we're still on the same page here. Not sure why you'd feel the need to call out someone else's knowledge on a topic that you have no idea about.

However, Wayback Machine making read-only copies of websites has for now never been disputed successfully.

Except it has. That's why administrators can exclude domains from it. DMCA notices also can yield complete removals.