Ehh, I halfway agree, but there is value in keeping historical stuff around. Heritage laws exist in a good number of countries so that all the cultural architecture doesn’t get erased by developers looking to turn a quick buck or rich people who think that 500 year old castle could really use an infinity pool hot tub; there are strict requirements for a building to be heritage-listed but once they are, the owner is required by law to maintain it to historical standards.
I only halfway disagree because you’re right, forcing people to pay for something has never sat right with me generally. As long as the laws don’t bite people like you and me, I’d be okay with some kind of heritage system for preserving the internet.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
That being said, if a third party, like the Internet Archive, wants to archive it they should have every right.
funtrek@discuss.tchncs.de 2 weeks ago
Maybe for sites from corporations or similar sources. But people should have always have the right to be forgotten. And in fact in some countries they do have this right.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Want to be forgotten is about personally identifiable information. Other work, which is covered under copyright, which means if someone has legally obtained a copy of it, as long as they’re not distributing it, is their right to do whatever the fuck they want with it. Even hold it until the copyright expires at which point they can publish it as much as they want.
Metz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
I’m not sure if i can agree with that. A third party cannot simply override the rights of the owner. If i want my website gone, i want it gone from everywhere. no exception.
That kinda also goes in the whole “Right to be forgotten” direction. I have absolute sovereignty over my data. This includes websites created by me. If i want it gone, it will be gone.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Yes they can, otherwise Disney can decide that that DVD you bought 10 years ago, you’re no longer allowed to have and you must destroy it.
Right to be forgotten is bullshit, not from an ideological standpoint right, but purely from a practicality stand point the old rule of once its on the internet its on the internet forever stands true. That’s not even getting started on the fact that right to be forgotten is about your personal information, not any material you may publish that is outside of that.
atrielienz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Disney can decide to terminate that license but the disc is another story. The license is for the media on the disc but the physical disc itself is owned by the person who bought it. This is literally why a company can remove a show or movie or song from your digital library. The license holder can always revoke the license. It was harder to enforce with physical media (and cost prohibitive in a lot of cases), but still possible.
Metz@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
You compare entirely different things here. I’m talking about a website i own not a product i sell. And no, this “on the internet forever” is complete and utter nonsense that was never true to begin with. the amount of stuff lost to time easely dwarfs the one still around.
grue@lemmy.world 2 weeks ago
Information doesn’t have “owners.” It only has – at most – “copyright holders,” who are being allowed to temporarily borrow it from the Public Domain.
Telorand@reddthat.com 2 weeks ago
Imagine that absolute historical clusterfuck if terrible politicians and bad actors could just delete entire portions of their history.
evatronic@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
A “Library of Congress” for published web content maybe. Some sort of standard that allows / requires websites that publish content on oublic-facing sites to also share a permanent copy with an archive, without having the archive have to scrape it.
Sort of like how book publishers send a copy to the LoC.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I don’t think requiring is a great idea, but definitely making the standard that you can do if you want would be very cool.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
This is just like AI scraping
Randomgal@lemmy.ca 2 weeks ago
Yes except AI companies are making mad cheddar.
muntedcrocodile@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
Not really. If the archive decides to publish your work, that’s copyright infringement. If an AI company decides to scrape your content and develop an AI with your content, I would argue that that’s a derivative work, which is also protected by copyright.
GBU_28@lemm.ee 2 weeks ago
I’m not discussing what they do with it, I’m discussing the raw act of ingesting your page.
Cats and bags