Technology

59317 readers

5904 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

328

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

submitted 2 months ago by alex@jlai.lu to c/technology@lemmy.world

90 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com -1 points 2 months 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.

[–] antonim@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months 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.

[–] Saik0Shinigami@lemmy.saik0.com 2 points 2 months 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.