> Google's "cached" pages system is essentially an archive under a different name. Is it truly a leap of logic if even a court of law comes to the same decision? Yes, the court clearly made a leap in logic. Courts don't always follow logic, because it's not efficient to do so. Btw, the court case is only in the district of Nevada. And I'm honestly surprised by this, considering that you do *not* have to explicitly assert your copyright in order for copyright to apply. It seems this particular court thought caching was an exception, unfortunately. Pretty disgusting. Anyways, if I find any site archiving any of the stuff from my server, I'll be looking into DMCA takedowns, because I don't tolerate utter disrespect for users' content like that. It's disgusting. Christian Seibold Sent with ProtonMail Secure Email. ??????? Original Message ??????? On Thursday, November 26th, 2020 at 1:09 AM, Robert "khuxkm" Miles <khuxkm at tilde.team> wrote: > Hi Krixano, > > A few thoughts. First of all, please use plaintext email in future > > (https://useplaintext.email/#protonmail, as your signature clearly indicated you use protonmail I > > can give you the direct link). It's easier for a lot of us to access. > > Regarding your first email: > > November 26, 2020 1:09 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > I want to point out that making the assumption that a lack of robots.txt > > > > is because servers don't mind they're content being archived is a leap in logic > > > > that doesn't actually follow/make sense. A server/user could have just forgotten > > > > to put a robots.txt, or they could have just not known about it. > > > > > A personal example: I didn't have a robots.txt on my capsule file until today, but I don't want > > > > to be included in archives for various reasons. Presuming consent from the lack of a robots.txt > > > > file would have incorrectly guessed my preference, and harmed my privacy. Who else in that 90% is > > > > like me? We don't know. > > > > Exactly! When I first got my server up, I didn't have a robots.txt for the longest time. Some of my > > > > content was actually not supposed to be archived because it was dynamic stuff. And other stuff I > > > > didn't necessarily want archived. > > It may be a leap of logic, sure, but it's the same leap of logic that has been all but codified as > > law (see court cases like Field v. Google, where judges have determined that not including a > > robots.txt or no-archive tag grants an implied license to archive). As stated in the case summary of Field v. Google: > > > Author granted operator of Internet search engine implied license to display "cached" links to web pages containing his copyrighted works when author consciously chose not to include no-archive meta-tag on pages of his website, despite knowing that including meta-tag would have informed operator not to display "cached" links to his pages and that absence of meta-tag would be interpreted by operator as permission to allow access to his web pages via "cached" links. > > Google's "cached" pages system is essentially an archive under a different name. Is it truly a leap of logic if even a court of law comes to the same decision? > > November 26, 2020 1:12 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > I'm not sure why Internet Archive matters here. Just because they do something doesn't mean > > > > it's the right thing to do. Seems like an appeal to authority to me. > > It is an appeal to authority, but not a fallacious one. The Internet Archive is (as far as I know) > > the biggest archiving group on the Internet. If they do something, it's not entirely beyond reason > > to assume other people do the same. A wide variety of people who do archiving that I've spoken to > > have the same attitude: they'll still archive it, but they won't make the archive available to the > > public if they aren't supposed to. > > November 26, 2020 1:18 AM, "Krixano" krixano at protonmail.com wrote: > > > One more thing I want to point out... copyright law isn't opt-in. It's opt-out. > > > > If you don't have a copyright statement or any other licensing information, > > > > then "all rights reserved" is automatically assumed, afaik. You can't just copy > > > > something just because the author didn't explicitly disallow you from doing that. > > Again, see above; the law is on the side of the person assuming robots.txt is a system for opting out of indexing/archiving/etc. > > Just my two cents, > > Robert "khuxkm" Miles
---
Previous in thread (49 of 70): 🗣️ Robert "khuxkm" Miles (khuxkm (a) tilde.team)
Next in thread (51 of 70): 🗣️ Krixano (krixano (a) protonmail.com)