Jason Scott has more on the backup: http://ascii.textfiles.com/archives/5110
Anyway, I'm hoping that situation will improve - unused NAS space would be a pretty big addition to IA.BAK, and you can't beat the UX of just installing an extension on a device you might already own.
I'm going to respond by making donations I've been deferring, such as to archive.org .
Tomorrow...? Who knows?
Waiting doesn't work. I'm going to do what I can, now. Maybe it'll help, and hopefully I'll feel a little better about myself.
My thanks to Jason and all, for every time I've found a resource I was seeking mirrored and preserved, for my use and for posterity.
I'll add that a lot of "older" pages seem to -- still -- be more useful than many newer ones. The archive isn't just about maintaining some record "for posterity". It proves useful in current circumstances, daily.
And... No one should be able to make our history "go away."
> so no one will ever be able to change the past just because there is no digital record of it. The Web needs a memory, the ability to look back.
I thought the issue is/was that site owners (original, or purchasing the domain afterwards) could via a robots.txt remove their site from the archive?
or has this changed and now no matter what happens if the archive crawls a site on a date it stays no matter if 10 years down the road somebody buys the domain and decides to retroactively erase everything?
In our modern hyperpoliticized era, one has to wonder if the Internet Archive is actually trustworthy for anything contentious anymore.
IMO, they need to stop applying robots.txt retroactively if they want to be considered a valid archive.
Libraries/archives have no special exemption from copyright law, which is actually a good thing, because otherwise libraries would presumably need to be licensed in some way by the government to qualify for special treatment.
You'd then just have to stop the archive indexing/showing content after the WHOIS information changed, while leaving the stuff before it intact. Maybe you'd then have a nice form to report pages you want removed/hidden (for the edge cases), or even a seperate robots.txt/meta declaration you can make confirming you're the same person that owns the site. After all, most of the reasons why sites go missing aren't deliberate attempts to rewrite history, but domain squatters not wanting holding pages indexed.
Feels like it'd be so easy to implement robots.txt in a more logical way on the Internet Archive.
> the Internet Archive exists on legally shaky ground
Not only would this obliterate public access to the Obama, Bush, Clinton era government websites in the archive, it'd prevent the use of the Wayback Machine for keeping track of Trump's shifting agendas, as demonstrated on his web domain recently.
*someone who has the skills to make it, because I don't, at least right now
> Our reserves vary throughout the year but are generally around 1 year of revenue. The typical recommendation for stable and successful nonprofits is to have between 6 months and 2 years of reserves. (https://www.quora.com/Wikipedia-in-2015-Why-does-Wikipedia-a...)
It's only responsible for a non-profit to keep money for when people donate less or when a lot of money is needed. In fact it would be unwise to only ask for donations when you're on the verge of bankruptcy. Not to mention that no matter how efficiently you run an organization, at the size of readers served by Wikipedia you do need to meet the demand by spending more resources. I have to mention this because so many people use it as justification not to donate, "oh I don't want to fund fat cat Jimbo's private jet" or whatever, especially when the foundations is very transparent compared to other non-profits.
That being said I do agree with the sentiment since Wikipedia uses the Internet Archive heavily to access citations that have long since 404ed and they both believe in access to information. Personally as a Wikipedia editor, I use the Internet Archive daily to access websites that are no longer online and to fight linkrot. It's invaluable for the functioning of the encyclopedia, especially when reacting to dead links as opposed to pre-emptively saving sources in Webcite or Archive.is. Wikimedia does appear on the donors acknowledgement page by the way (http://archive.org/donate/donors.php), though I'm sure you meant in a more hands-on manner.
The Internet Archive uses blekko's slashtag data, which is a commercial effort founded by the ODP team -- blekko, now owned by IBM Watson.
On the other side, Wikipedia is knowledge, pure knowledge, and this is worth preserving in my opinion.
That’s why not only the very earliest Usenet posts, before Spencer started archiving in 1981 (Usenet began in 1979) but even some of the posts in the 1980s are still lost. It’s too bad; today, wouldn’t more of us rather see what was being said about abortion in 1984 than sift through the arcana of bug fixes in systems that have probably been long since retired? “It was perfectly reasonable from the viewpoint of stuff that we might want to use again, but a little sad from today’s viewpoint,” Spencer admits.
 http://www.salon.com/2002/01/08/saving_usenet/ A great read BTW.
And that's not to mention their software library. Sketch (Jason Scott) seems to be the driving force behind it. As much as it's backed by ugly hacks (emulators compiled to JS. Yuck) it's pretty magical to be able to boot up, say, Fantasy World Dizzy in a web browser, and just play it, no install required.
All magic is ugly hacks!
Anyways, thanks for uploading Fantasy World Dizzy. Now I can experience the horror the same way that the children of the '80s and '90s did.
Fortunately storage and bandwidth costs will keep decreasing so more replicas can be built over time. I just made a contribution.
BTW, I was in their building in SF in June for the Decentralized Web conference - a fantastic location, and I recommend that you visit.
On a side note, I love textfiles.com. thanks for providing such a cool and important resource.
"2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association."
So far, so good. But it also has a section, the so-called "limitations clause", that states:
"The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society."
The Charter does not define what constitutes "reasonable" or "demonstrably justified", so it was left up to the courts to rule on that. The current interpretation is known as the Oakes test, and is actually fairly sensible.
However, the problem remains that this basically gives the government the ability to restrict freedom of speech, if such restriction can be "demonstrably justified". Consequently, for a long time, Canadian law prohibited a fairly broad category of speech labeled as "hate speech", and said prohibition was found by the courts to be consistent with the Charter.
It had also created a special tribunal to deal with the purported violations of one of the laws in question (specifically, Section 13), which operated under principles somewhat different from the regular court system. The article I linked to was about that. You can read the law here:
This particular law was, indeed, repealed by the Harper government. However, it only dealt with Section 13 law. There are other laws in Canada that are still in force that regulate "hate speech"; in particular:
Furthermore there's nothing precluding any future government from enacting a law to restore Section 13 and reinstate the Commission - all it takes is a simple majority in the legislature. Some people have called for the Trudeau government to do just that, although it did not indicate the desire to do that so far.
The other issue is that the Charter can be circumvented by both the federal and the provincial governments by their use of the Notwithstanding Clause, which is as follows:
"(1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4)."
In other words, the legislature can effectively limit any fundamental freedom (this is Section 2, the one that includes freedom of speech and expression), and the only thing that they need to do so is 1) declare that they're doing it, and 2) renew that declaration every 5 years.
So far, the only instance of the Notwithstanding Clause used to limit freedom of speech that I'm aware of is its use by the legislature of Quebec in the 80s to pass their language protection laws (that mandated use of French in certain public signage etc). However, it could, in theory, also be used for "hate speech" laws and other similar restrictions.
The general point is that, in terms of both actual and potential curtailment of the freedom of speech, Canada offers far fewer guarantees than US does. While the Trump administration has expressed some hostility towards the concept of free speech already, actually acting out on it would put them on the collision course with the Supreme Court and its currently standing Brandenburg v. Ohio ruling interpreting the First Amendment, which provides extremely broad free speech protections, far exceeding anything that Canada has in the Charter, even ignoring the Notwithstanding Clause.
In terms of other countries that have laws and legal checks and balances comparable to those in US, the only one that I happen to know of is Estonia. But I'm sure there are others, it just needs researching. For something like the Internet Archive, which is archiving materials that can be contentious, I would expect legal freedom of speech to be a very strong consideration when picking jurisdictions in which to operate.
Still though, Canada's legislation seems no more restrictive than most other (Non-U.S.) democracies. That's according to my quick read of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country (so take it for what it's worth). I mean, surely there are some that are marginally better but it doesn't seem like there are any obvious leaders here. Maybe I'm missing something though.
Given that, I don't see how Canada would be a bad choice for a mirror. Especially given the other distinct advantages. Physical proximity being an obvious one (it's probably much more cost effective to build some servers pre-loaded with data and drive them up versus almost any other option). Same time zone, same language, and general political/social/economic stability are probably also pretty key. And then there are other threat considerations (eg. the Baltics being so close to Russia) that come into play.
Geographic proximity has both upsides and downsides - the downside is that something that affects US is also more likely to affect Canada than any other nation (except, perhaps, Mexico).
As far as threat consideration, you have a point there - but I think that having a distributed network of server mirrors is part of mitigating any such sudden threats against any particular one. In a sense, something like a Russian invasion can probably be treated similarly to, say, a possibility of a major earthquake on the West Coast disrupting infrastructure.
But yes. I do see how Canada is probably the easiest to set up for someone in US. If they just want something done right now, as immediate mitigation, and consider better options later, it makes sense.
If someone else owns the site or if it's a social media site, you'd have to see what the site owner will do. There's probably not much you can do on your own to prevent the site from being archived,
Preferrably people would think more carefully before disallowing / I guess. I have many times been disappointed that info is entirely gone because archive.org respects robots.txt and the site is now offline forever.
Then there are the great people who spend their time, energy and resources to make such things tick. A great thank you to all those philanthropic people behind the Internet archive and similar such projects. It's because of you, people like me have a hope to learn something significant and with a relatively low cost footprint.
I learned many things thanks to FSF, GNU, Gutenberg, Wikipedia, Internet archive and currently the scihub. I spent only about $10 per month for internet access. Could I even imagine getting such highclass knowledge at such a low cost? Not spent ridiculously high fees for college and still could learn a lot in history, economics, and some things from science, math, technology, engineering and many fields of knowledge. In fact, most of my significant education happened on Internet, thanks to such projects.
I love the USA and the modern liberal western world who made such things happen. Hats off.
Disclaimer: I am from a third world country. $10 p.m. was an expensive thing for me for a large time.
PS: I hope to be able to contribute more to such projects soon. I do contribute a rather insignificant amount as compared to the scale of things.
How about this:
1. Prgram an app that you asks the user if archive.org could store, say 1 gig of encrypted data on your hard drive? It wouldn't be mandatory, but you could help if desired. It would just sit on your hard drive.
That gig of data would be changing on a regular basis. (Big data centers could offer to take in data. Hell, they could have another tax right off at the end of the year.)
2. After all the data has been distributed around the world; the data transfer would start over again, but on different computers. In a short amount of time you might have millions of computers with part of The Internet Archive sitting idle on users hard drives. The end result is the users would be worker bees; waiting for the queen to call them home. (In the end, you might have 1000 computers with the same block of data on their hard drive. Why because computers don't last forever.)
3. If we had a catastrophe, once the new Internet Archive was repaired/restored; the data lying dormant on millions of hard drives would come home to papa in a orderly manner.
4. It would remind people of the importance of preserving history. It would bring more attention to The Internet Archive. It would bring in a sence of team. Why not try it until this 592c3 gets their donations?
5. Yes--this is off the top of my head. I would need to put more thought into it.
French police recently raided the infrastructure of such a place, and now it's gone. It was around for 8 years.
Who knows, maybe users will organize in a different way to make an more legal repository of music.
I may have allegedly been a pirate years ago. And I may have allegedly spent a lot of time at various abandonware sites because I like older games. And those sites seemed great. They had strict rules on what could and could not be uploaded and very much took the approach of "this is an archive". Then GoG launched and made it reasonable to buy those older games in a format that would (usually) work on modern systems.
Great right? We won! Nope. All four of the sites I used to (allegedly) frequent had responses ranging from "They aren't the creators so we are still going to let you upload these files" to "Some of our uploads are in iso format so it is still required". Hell, one even allowed people to upload the gog installers.
I am mostly good with archive.org (I have some reservations but feel them to be a net good), but my general experience is that most "archive" sites tend to just be pirates who think they understand the legal system.
The Internet Archive worked closely with What.cd to archive the metadata that was painstakingly maintained there. They may even have snatched the perfect FLACs, and are shipping them offshore, so they can be made available when and if the US allows things to enter the public domain again.
Legally, that's irrelevant (except maybe for calculating damages). Publicly available content is just as copyrighted, and paid content may be in the public domain (e.g. printed copies of Oliver Twist).
Barring an explicit license, one can't copy any content on any website, except for simply displaying it (there's an implicit license). And you certainly can't re-distribute it.
There are exceptions (books and videos) but I assume they are negotiated with rights owners.
Why do you assume that, when anyone can upload them?
I'll also assume that it's as easy to upload copyrighted material than it is to remove them for the rights owner.
You're totally right about the license of publicly available content. I handwaved over it, assuming that people still wouldn't mind backup by a tier as long as it doesn't damage them (and again I'll assume archive.org accepts removal when demanded... which I'm gonna check right now).
https://archive.org/about/faqs.php#Movies (search for Who owns the rights to these movies?)
The exclusion specifically of any ISIS supporting articles and videos makes it seem that archive.org is not truly interested in creating an archive for future generations but is instead interested in creating an archive which supports their political/religious beliefs.
Cataloging and archiving Islamic State videos doesn't mean that one endorses their beliefs or supports the organization.
It's a shame that what could've been an organization for good has become a islamaphobic political organization.
Don't feed the trolls, people.