A tasteful way to go about this would be to give context to past posts with a note at the same url.
To the people who want to be forgotten, you will be, but the internet is too valuable to the future for retroactive censorship.
If I don't allow you to copy and publish my content, I'm not censoring you. Using that term in this context makes no sense.
As for webcrawlers: sure, they are out there. And when their makers publish your content, they are infringing your rights and (in many countries) commit a crime.
If you made a reasonable effort to control access to your works that might be a different story.
Fair use has never been considered by the courts to include making unlimited copies of the entirety of the work and distributing them worldwide to others. This is clearly a violation of copyright and is a criminal act under US law.
The Internet Archive publishes the content, they don't use a robots.txt, canonical-tag (they do set a link-header) or robots meta-tag asking search engines not to index their version. For all intents and purposes, it's just a copy of your content published on their website.
I understand their goal, I'm not opposed to it on a fundamental level, but I do believe that the choice of participation should rest with the content creator.
Copyright was never intended to give authors ironclad control over their works in perpetuity. It was intended to give a limited period of exclusivity, in return for the expectation that the work would always become public property. Eternal copyright upsets that balance, and shackles public culture behind bars.
The rules for copyright do apply to websites. Here is what the US Copyright Office says:
"What does copyright protect?
Copyright, a form of intellectual property law, protects original works of authorship including literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, such as poetry, novels, movies, songs, computer software, and architecture. Copyright does not protect facts, ideas, systems, or methods of operation, although it may protect the way these things are expressed. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section 'What Works Are Protected.'
When is my work protected?
Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device."
Source URL = https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-general.html
More FAQs: https://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/
'Circular 1' URL = https://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ01.pdf
It might not be true forever. Unfortunately.
(Side note: domain name expiration was a mistake.)
The same thing that gives them the right otherwise: fair use, and explicit archiving exceptions written into copyright law. robots.txt adds no additional legality.
robots.txt has never had much of a legal meaning. Respecting it was mostly a defense along the lines of "You only have to ask, even retrospectively, and we won't copy your content." As a practical matter, very few are going to sue a non-profit to take down content when they pretty much only have to send an email, (almost) no questions asked.
Yes, it potentially does. There are court cases establishing precedent that copying something in its entirety can still be fair use, as well as law and court cases establishing specific allowances for archives/libraries/etc.
I've always been told that fair use--as a defense against a copyright infringement claim--is very fact dependent.
What if people don’t want to be part of internet history? It’s hard enough to be anonymous, or even to move on from mistakes, as it is.
And, yes, I get it, there’s more than the IA but it’s a point of principle for me. I’m not talking about erasing newspaper articles but rather the blog a kid posts when they are naive.
That's basically the way it is anyway. If you go out in public (physically or virtually), you've lost some control over how long-reaching your actions might be. If you do something stupid in public, you can't prevent people from posting their videos/photos of it, or just talking about you. The internet is no different. While you can get your stuff removed from some places, you have no control over it generally speaking. Somebody might have screenshots for example.
Plus, just because I have a website, that doesn't make it's content open domain, for some business to copy all it's contents and publish them without my knowledge.
Can you name maybe five large countries where that's true? It's not true in USA, nor UK AFAIK. I understand it's not true in Germany either.
So, I only know contradictions, interested to hear. China and Russia, don't seem likely to have such laws - maybe they're common in South America, Africa?
Yes, that's why at ryanmercer.com I leave incredibly embarrassing LiveJournal posts up from high school in 2001.
That's who I was, in 2001, not necessarily now. Those are things I willingly and freely shared on the internet. Do they make me cringe... yes, do I wish I'd never have posted them... yes, but I did so they are there to document who I was, to document what a random teen thought during that period, if someone or a potential employer wants to old 2001 Ryan against 2019 Ryan then I don't want to have anything to do with them.
I personally totally agree with the petition. And at the same time, I also think people should have the right to remove their mistakes. It's just that when they have no strong reason to remove a site, I'd rather people leave it there so history can be preserved.
If a person’s reason is more akin to a whim, then persuade them of the value of being a part of the record you want to see.
That's like saying "what if people don't want to be part of human history?" Like it or not, unless a individual is completely inconsequential, they're part of history, and that should be preserved for future historians to dig through.
We have the capability to preserve untold amounts of data for the future - far more than any other time in history - and some of us are more worried about ensuring that they don't have a place at that table. It's so sad, honestly.
Your idea probably works in USA with Fair Use.
There are some exceptions but they're not really pertinent here: You can make a transient copy, eg in order to view a website you might cache something. You can retain a copy of a TV show until you watch it - but can only watch once, and not with company. You can keep copies to facilitate workarounds for disabilities (but again you can use that for retention) ...
Registered archives can keep works so long as they're not accessible by the public.
Your second link, I wasn't totally aware of those changes. However, they don't seem especially pertinent. You're not allowed access to the whole copy of an archive copyright work. Private archives can't keep copies. Public archives can only do so when buying access is not feasible.
The private study requires you to be on a related official course of study, and the works used -- but only accessed in part -- have to be cited in the study results.
So, WBM isn't a UK public library and couldn't copy a UK served website legally for archive. A UK public archive could serve the pages, but only parts of them, and only to people physically in the building.
I think my summary was correct in context; detailed corrections welcome!
This idea that copyright has anything to do with "control" is what has caused so much cultural loss. Please don't perpetuate that idea.
That said, removal may entail simply removing public access, rather than deleting archived content:
The Internet Archive may, in appropriate circumstances and at its discretion, remove certain content or disable access to content that appears to infringe the copyright or other intellectual property rights of others.
Then someone catches the domain and recreates the site with your content, without your knowledge or permission. You're happy with this are you?
> Then someone catches the domain and recreates the site with your content, without your knowledge or permission. You're happy with this are you?
What's to stop someone from doing that without the internet archive?
They've removed themselves from archive.org so now we can't easily show that they've more than doubled the cost of the annual student bus pass over the last few years.
Some actually legitimate reasons
1. Outed themselves as a minority which is now being persecuted. (too late, the state already has the evidence)
2. Need to remove a post that is actively agitating/acting as a focus point for some group that rises to the level of physical threats.
People, the internet is public. If you put up something on port 80 or 443, you have just published a book. You can't unpublish a book. I'm sorry if the affordances are shitty and the social media platforms intentionally mislead you into thinking that publishing is 'sharing,' but if you published it, you have to own it. You cannot unspeak, and if you do you or if a systems allows you to, then that is a fundamental violation of the social contract. If you fucked up, and want to appologise, or provide additional context, then by all means do so.
In cases where a tweet, post, etc. incites a brigade, there need to be ways to temporarily hide content, but if it is deleted forever, then there is a tempest in a teapot without any teapot for reference. Not that it will ever happen, but platforms like twitter should be held accountable for facilitating viral hatred and brigading, it would incentivize them to implement algorithms to damp the spread and to force additional context onto users before they are allowed to view a hot and bothered tweet (or similar). You must correctly answer these 10 questions about the context from which the author was speaking before you are allowed to retweet or even view this message. That might be a good compromise for 'surge' internet outrage.
There's no such social contract.
Mobs have short attention span and are mobilized by the newest controversy of the day. We're talking about recording history. You remove a bug from git, but you don't alter the entire history for it. You remove passwords from git, but you also change the current passwords.
There's no reason we can't 'fix' the present and record the past at the same time.
Insulted Putin, or China, or MBS and now I need to go to their country
Don't want your picture taken all the time? Don't want everything you say recorded and archived? You might also not want everything you write to be archived. If you want control over your content, archives are a problem.
> Don't want your picture taken all the time? Don't want everything you say recorded and archived? You might also not want everything you write to be archived. If you want control over your content, archives are a problem.
Good luck tracking down every company/user that has visited your page then. Any single one of them could be archivers. It's not hard to change a user agent to look like Google.
This is like arguing against archiving newspapers. If you explicitly publish it online for the world to see, you can't make people unsee it.
Could be, sure. And anyone could wear a hidden camera and secretly take your picture, or a wire and secretly record you.
If any of those undercover archivers re-publishes your content, send a DMCA notice and sue them. Where copyright infringement is a crime, report them.
There's a cultural component to this, I believe. Americans seem to feel that pictures, recordings etc taken in public are fair game, continental Europe has a different stance. Even in public, you can't take pictures of ordinary people and publish them (unless they're part of an extraordinary event).
I don't know which European country you have in mind specifically, arguably some are more strict on this than others(Germany, Austria) but most places you can take and publish pictures taken in public places without asking for permission. It's only an issue if someone is specifically a subject of your picture - so a wide shot of street is absolutely fine, but a photo zoomed in on someone's face is not, even if they were in a public space.
Some also allow news content in general, even if the picture itself isn't noteworthy (i.e. illustrating a shopping mall vs somebody standing next to a politician being attacked with a cake), but I don't know about the intricacies.
I'm European, but I fail to see how anybody could have any expectation of privacy when in a public place. You either outlaw camera's completely or you have to accept that you might end up in the background of somebodies photograph. I don't think outlawing camera's is realistic.
You don't need to outlaw cameras any more than you need to outlaw knives to keep people from stabbing others. But as mentioned, there's a fundamental difference in the idea of privacy, I suppose. It can be understood as "something that happens in a non-public place" or it can be understood as a larger idea that you have a certain right to not be surveilled, recorded and stalked.
I guess that I find the idea that you should expect privacy when in a public space kind of strange (its right there in the word: public), but that doesn't mean that I think its ok for someone to follow you around recording you (but not because of the actual act of being recorded, but rather because of the targeted nature).
Similarly, I think passive recording (ie non-targeted surveillance) of public spaces should be allowed in and of itself, but that its the use that dictates whether its abusive or not (ie if its done so that people can be identified, then that seems similar to me to following someone around, but if its done for the backdrop of a movie or art project, or its done to study foot traffic on a street.. basically there are many reasons which aren't abusive).
> Do we really want to be haunted by our past in such a way?
To which my reply was: let's be mature about it and not care about trivialities from someone's past.
Now you change the subject to: "What if its you kid who's being bullied or who got bullied?". My kid being bullied "right now" is not the same as "my kid did some stupid shit 10 years ago and people are making fun of him now because of it". This is another problem with another solution, and it's not something I argued about.
No, we can't.
Whatever we each may feel about the Archive's policy, it's a bit over the top to compare it with forcing someone to never speak of what they saw, or to go into anyone's home to seize their books or destroy their personal newspaper collection.
I believe the "right" (I agree that it should be quoted) to be forgotten is a temporary stopgap measure for those who haven't received a proper digital literacy education beforehand (that is, almost everyone). I expect the "right" will hang around for a long time, for the lack of better alternatives.
The right to be forgotten is a simple way to say: "I do not want this content to exist on the Internet". Does that stop the content from existing? No, of course not. Revenge pornography can still be found after that Pinkwhateveritwascalled website got shut down. But it got more difficult, and its a matter of supply and demand. If the website is only accessible via Tor, then those who got the content on their computer took more effort into obtaining the content. You could make the same argument for child pornography.
That being said, the real problem is the lack of prosecution for the content creators. And that is true for child pornography and revenge pornography and bullying videos. However, trend is that the latter 2 are on the rise on the public web. If the right to be forgotten can slow that trend down, I'd say that's a good thing.
I mean, probably >90% of people have been deeply drunk at some point of their life. So objetively and rationally speaking, a drunk photo is not a reasonable reason to reject someone from, e.g., a job. Maybe if such photos become widespread we will come to our senses in this?
To each their own, though.
*I know you said "otherwise identical", but that's not a very realistic situation and if it did happen, it would justify choosing by just any irrelevant difference, like one candidate having one day of work experience more than the other, so I don't think that says much about the importance of a criterion.
From a 1966 BBC documentary:
"Well, he who has access to information controls the game. This is very dangerous. I think both your country and mine have never trusted the government completely. We do so for good reason. Here we have a mechanism that could be abused. Here we have a mechanism that would allow the creation of a dictator. . .
I've yet to see an expression by anyone in Congress about this new type of danger. In fact, we see proposals for centralizing information, we see proposals for rushing ahead into new, more efficient computer information systems, and very little thought is being given to the dangers of the misuse of these systems. . . I ask a lot of people about privacy, why they valued it, and I was surprised by the number of people who said "Well, I don't do anything wrong. Why should I worry about privacy?" And then, on the other hand, I think there's a more wise group that says, 'Privacy is really the right to be wrong, then go on and live the rest of your life, without having it mark you forever.' I tend to think this latter view is the view we should hold."
The speaker is Paul Baran, of RAND Corporation, and the inventor of packet-based switching -- the technology which makes the Internet possible.
If you want to know who could possibly have forseen the negative consequences of universal information networks might have been: their creator did.
Baran's full archive of RAND publications are now freely downloadable from RAND, after I'd requested access in July of 2018, for which I'm immensely grateful.