Slashdot Mirror
Law Prevents British Websites From Being Archived
Lanxon writes "The law that allows the US Internet Archive to collect and preserve websites does not apply to British archivists. In fact, experts from the Archive and many other archivist institutions argue that the only way the millions of Britain's websites could be legally archived is if British law itself was amended, reports Wired in an investigation published today. Currently, archivists have to seek permission from webmasters of every single site before they are able to take snapshots and retain data."
(No, I didn't read the article) Surely this restriction would only apply to British "archivists"? What if you are caching this page from an American server? Or Sweden? ;-)
I don't know how Google's cache works, but I imagine it must be national for speed reasons
Does that mean they are infringing UK law?
Seriously, who makes these kinds of laws. Maybe there is some kind of byzantine reasoning regarding British legalities but if you put something on a publicly accessible webpage good luck enforcing who can have that content! Car analagy, your vin is in plain view, but if you pass a law that people cannot write down a vin unless you own the vehicle... good luck with that.
"It's ok, I'm completely secure as long as my iron is off"
That seems stupid as everyone can do it for themselves, but not everyone will, so you then end up with a problem of accessing information when a website is gone.
For me it seems more important is the use. All free-access websites are by definition used to convey information and to anyone who is interested. Therefore dissemination of that information by means of an archived version should be ok.
Perhaps there's a case of besides a robots.txt to have a licence file on how to use it. What some people will especially object to is commercial selling of that archive. Particularly when it's done while the original website is still around!
For example, I started a website for 8 bit BBC micro software and documentation in 1995 which was the first of its type (for this machine). The emphasis was on trying out stuff myself and making it available to others. But I wouldn't have liked to have someone sell CDs with my website, i.e. profiteering of mainly my work. This didn't actually happen but having put in the effort for such a website myself, I know what it means were this to happen. This actually happens a lot and has happened to a friend of mine who maintains a similar website. Such copying of course falls under copyright law so in theory you can warn people off (muddied a bit in that the program files read in from old tapes/disks are in fact still under copyright! So you can claim copyright on your HTML, layout and perhaps the collection as a whole). Perhaps one should just take it on the chin as something that will happen and just be happy the stuff gets out there. A stance more like the BSD licence (do what you want with it as long as you give credit) than the GPL licence (lots of restrictions on redistribution).
In any event, as I said, perhaps a good idea for a licence file for websites.
In case it gets slashdotted, heres the cached version of the Legal Deposit Libraries Act 2003
'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
but it's not 'preventing' anything...
From the article:
"The team currently has to contact the copyright holder of every website it wants to archive and this process has just a 24 percent response rate."
Actually, I'd say they have almost a 100% response rate. They ask the copyright holder, "May I please have a copy of your content?" and in most cases, they receive a response within 500 milliseconds saying, "Sure! Here it is!"
So the "Save Page As..." command in the File menu is illegal in Britain?
Twinstiq, game news
Just to make it clear: By publishing a free access website, in effect you are giving a licence to copy. However, how broad this is isn't clear. That's what the licence could be for. Perhaps by default some sort of (to be determined) non-commercial redistribution licence should be implicit for any website? (And if there is a licence file, that will give more freedom as described therein, including selling of archived backups).
just the laws and motions they have put in motion in the last month are appalling enough. leaving aside what has been happening in the last years. i guess a british citizen's freedoms in britain reached the level that is comparable with a moroccan in morocco. it really feels like a horror movie. albeit, real.
Read radical news here
In fact, TFA talks about a different organization, the UK Internet Archive, which is presumably based in the UK and under UK jurisdiction. The British laws affect the UK IA, not the US IA.
Lamelamelame
Unless the UK has no fair use provision at all, this article blows the issue out of proportion. First, it would appear to apply only to UK 'archivists' of UK sites. More to the point, it's really not about the archiving, it's about what they do with the copies. Your browser keeps an archived copy- are you telling me that's infringement in the UK, or that somehow it's infringement when you direct your browser to store it some non-default location for an indefinite period? No, the infringement comes when the archives are turned into databases and are re-sent by someone other than the original site proprietor. And I'm not sure I see a problem in having to sit on an archived copy until the original is down and the originator is gone.
... is obsolete; the problem of oppressive social hierarchies is nothing compared to the threat of rampant archivists!
Anarchivists Unite!
let's kill all the lawyers"
I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
Why not update robots.txt to flag that permission is granted to archive the site?
Does anyone else worry that in the current age with technology constantly butting heads with rights holders that in the future historians will likely find large gaps of history simply missing? I have a feeling things will end up very similar to the hollywood and the bbc in the 60's and 70's when vast amounts of movies and television episodes were destroyed or wiped simply to clear space in the vaults. Take Dr Who for instance, most of the William Hartnell and Patrick Troughton seasons are gone forever. In the states nearly all of the Jack Parr episodes of the Tonight Show are gone as well.
I get to say it again...
Fuck Britain!
eTrade SUCKS
The law does not prevent the archiving of web sites, it makes it illegal. Two different concepts.
This sounds like something that could be used for selective enforcement against someone the authorities dislike, for some reason, but aren't able to lay charges for any real crimes.
Currently, archivists have to seek permission from webmasters of every single site before they are able to take snapshots and retain data. My UK websites have been archived for years. Nobody asked me.
When the singularity happens and everyone is plugged into the HiveMind, I'll be driving around in a Lexus stealing all of their cool stuff and raiding their fridges.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
My website's a .com, it was registered here in the UK but has since been transferred to a company in the US, and is currently hosted by an international company with servers just about everywhere. So is it a UK website, or a US one, or ...?
Fluoride isn't something you should drink. When your government puts fluoride in the drinking water because some people are too fucking lazy to brush their teeth, that's a crime against those who can take care of themselves.
How can you steal something if a copy of it appears as soon as you take it?
To quote you from one of your previous postings, "There's a saying, better to be thought of as stupid than open your mouth and confirm it.".
There's no such thing as "British law". There's English law, Scots law, and Northern Ireland law. Fail.
Well unless magic 3-D printers that crank out HDTVs and Rolexes exist by then, I'll have plenty of stuff to steal.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
I think you missed the "When the singularity happens and everyone is plugged into the HiveMind" part of the parent comment I was replying to.
...that didn't like having its web sites cached...awkward, when people used cached content to say "But that isn't what you were saying back...".
I cannot seem to remember the name of that news corporation...but as I recall, it has a presence in England, America, and Australia.
Orwell: "In a Time of Universal Deceit, telling the Truth is a Revolutionary Act"
So nothing has really changed with technology then.
Current historians would absolutatly love it if we had better coverage of many periods of human history - much of it (even the written records) has been lost, blown up, burnt, flooded, lost in the deserts, built over, eroded, probably even eaten, ... over the years.
Historians are able to get lots of information from the little that remains - piecing together partial fragments, cross-references, stories, even boxes in attics can hold wealth of information.
http://www.gevezechat.net
Actually there are some quite significant differences between the legal systems. Scots law draws more on Roman law, English law more on Norman law. English courts judge you guilty or not guilty, Scots courts guilty, not guilty, or not proven. A spoken word is legally binding in Scotland, not so in England.
Much, much more than merely semantics.
The different legal systems across the UK have always been evolving and changing and I don't think this in itself will change the relationships between the countries or the future of the Act of Union.
Speaking as a UK citizen who has lived in England and Scotland I can tell you the legal systems are different and Scots law doesn't bow to English law. English politics doesn't influence Scots law to any great extent to my understanding.
A good example was the Lockerbie bomber trial where the Libyan suspect was tried under Scots law and not English law, and there was general agreement that the legal system and judges came up with a different result than may have been found in the English system.
I am not a lawyer and would happily be educated by somebody with a greater knowledge of how the legal systems are negotiated when it comes to drawing up new Acts of Parliament, but have lived in both countries and dealt with both legal systems.
I am interested to hear where you draw your expertise from: are you somebody who studies the legal practices of the UK?
I understand your viewpoint though: may I ask your opinion on the West Lothian Question?
great britain = england in the second sentence.
Read radical news here