|
Poster:
|
jory2 |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 08:38:47am |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
@Not Allan:
you say; "If the ownership of the site changes, what does that have to do with the historical record? Answer - nothing."
I don't think anyone would disagree with that.
What you failed to consider, and what is most important, was what the Rightful Owner(s) of the websites want.
Perhaps the "proper treatment" would have been for this website to have the consent and the legal permission of the Rightful owners in the first place.
|
Poster:
|
Not Allan |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 08:49:47am |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
If the archive finds itself publishing material that is copyrighted and the person owning the copyright wants to challenge the archive then they would have the normal means of doing so. But this is not the issue here. There are no copyright challenges involved.
The issue here is historical integrity.
|
Poster:
|
jory2 |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 09:41:27am |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
@Not Allan:
http://archive.org/about/terms.php"The Archive does not endorse or sponsor any content in the Collections, nor does it guarantee or warrant that the content available in the Collections is accurate, complete, noninfringing, or legally accessible in your jurisdiction, and you agree that you are solely responsible for abiding by all laws and regulations that may be applicable to the viewing of the content. In addition, the Collections are provided to you on an as-is and as-available basis."
I agree 100% with the statement "the issue here is historical integrity." unfortunately this website has absolutely none.
You say; "If the archive finds itself publishing material that is copyrighted"
If?, what do you mean if? I know of zero websites old enough to be in the "public domain" void of Copyright.
You?
|
Poster:
|
Not Allan |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 10:42:09am |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
'I agree 100% with the statement "the issue here is historical integrity." unfortunately this website has absolutely none.'
I don't understand this. Why not? Isn't the purpose of this website to archive the internet, so, why not just do it, with the disclaimers in the terms you have noted?
Also, the 'new owners' are not owners of the earlier web site, they are the new owners of the web site name, that's all. I don't know their motives for blacking out the site with robots.txt, but I suspect that they are not honorable. Why should they be catered to?
|
Poster:
|
PDpolice |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 02:12:26pm |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
In my first post I mentioned that you should “Please keep in mind the open nature of the forum does allow comments by those who do not have the Internet Archives best interest at heart.” I could have listed the names of some of those you have now met. Some posters are similar to a ‘grass-roots’ organization funded by millionaires. Not everyone wants information to be available without constant payment to a corporation or group. Do not equate the posting with the Archive itself.
Please lay out a more thorough argument for the proper treatment of a web page which has had ownership changes. And if you can address the problem of personal information being archived it would help.
|
Poster:
|
Not Allan |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 09:07:05pm |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
As pointed out, it is only the ownership of the name that changes, the new owner (unless by agreement with the prior owner) has no access to the content of the earlier web site, that is, he has no access to the files that made up the earlier site.
Therefore the 'new owner' of the name has no claim whatever on the prior web site, and no responsibility for it, and thus should have no say regarding it.
I can't see any counter argument here, can you?
But, the case is even stronger I think. Suppose I own a website, and I now decide that I'd like to have prior incarnations of the site erased from the archive. Should I have that prerogative? I don't think so. Ownership has nothing to do with it that I can see.
As for personal information, I don't see any difference if its posted on the active web or archived. The reasons for removing it from the web would apply equally to removing it from the archive and thus the question regarding the archive is identical to the question for the active web.
After all, the archive is part of the the active web.
I suppose if I am the owner of a site (past and present) and I want to remove personal info then the archive should consider that on a case by case basis, and the removal should explicitly noted on the web page, and the removal should not be hidden and invisible).
This post was modified by Not Allan on 2012-08-31 21:46:57
This post was modified by Not Allan on 2012-08-31 21:49:36
This post was modified by Not Allan on 2012-08-31 21:50:24
This post was modified by Not Allan on 2012-09-01 04:07:05
|
Poster:
|
jory2 |
Date:
|
August 31, 2012 10:55:33am |
|
Forum:
|
web
|
Subject:
|
Re: robots.txt |
@ Not Allan:
I don't think you understand even the basics of copyright laws so there's no point in this discussion; for me anyway.
Take care!
TVNews
OpenLibrary