This is why I like archive.is, it tends to avoid falling for any of that kind of BS. Something gets archived and it's there forever.
Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
271–280 of 317 posts
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#272When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.
I'm not sure you understand that putting something on an http server is publication . It is legally no different than standing on a street corner handing out flyers. You are suggesting that the author of a flyer should be able to demand that everyone who took one burn it immediately, and have the force of law to ensure it happens. That is not how copyright works. Copyright is intended to encourage the creation of new…
> It is legally no different than standing on a street corner handing out flyers.
It's not legally different, but it's still different, which is something that I think people on both sides of this debate sometimes selectively forget. Before the web, those "street flyers" were pretty unlikely to go viral and be seen by millions of people. They were pretty unlikely to get, well, much farther than that street corner. And there certainly wasn't a widely-known and shared infrastructure dedicated to capturing copies of the flyer and preserving them indefinitely.
I don't know that there should be a "right to forget," but in the pre-digital era, things had limited circulation. They went out of print. You couldn't control what happened to copies after they were printed, no, but nobody could say, "You know what, I don't want this thing to go out of print, so I'm going to put it back into print whether the author likes it or not." To use your flyer example: I can't legally demand people who have my flyer burn it, but I can legally demand that people don't make copies of my flyer and hand it out on street corners of their choice for the next thirty years.
The closest thing the web has to the concept of "out of print" is, well, taking things offline. And a lot of things that go offline undoubtedly should be preserved. I use the Internet Archive all the time. But at the same time, I'm not convinced that the answer to someone saying, "Hey, this thing I put online 20 years ago and took down 10 years ago is something I'd really like to keep out of print" must always and forever be, "well, you should never put anything online that you'll ever reconsider at any point in your entire life, you fool."
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the copyright, file sharing, music piracy arguments and debates from the 90s (Metallica, Napster! Hah) and 00s. But when I talk about this stuff now with people in their early 20s there seems to be less awareness. DRM & 'Stream everything' are the way it is, as if…
In a science fiction novel I wrote, the main character has trouble understanding the concept of data that has a physical location; to her, it's something that's just there. While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable. It does require some mind-shifts on all sides, including t…
>While I don't know if the real world will be that extreme, I don't think it's at all impossible. I think over the long term -- and maybe not even all that long -- it's probably inevitable.
I think that we're already there. This "cloud" generation seems to think that everything that exists (or at least is worthwhile) just sits on that magical Internet to be streamed to them whenever they want (and pay for it).
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
> When I delete an article from my blog It's not yours anymore once it's public. It's like saying "when I do something crazy in public I want to be able to make everyone forget about it later on". That's not how things are supposed to work. > I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore People can still have local copies so you have absolutely NO CONTROL.
Except they do in Europe under the 'right to be forgotten'.
I could say that "black is white" and yet it won't be so. The EU could say it, and afterwards black would still be black and white would still be white.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is, it's getting harder every day to find DRM-free content. For audio, CDs are getting out of fashion, and piracy channels lack the seeders because everybody is on Spotify.
Yes. The debate is gone. Young people have a much different view of 'ownership' (I struggled for a better word) than older people. For example, I remember the copyright, file sharing, music piracy arguments and debates from the 90s (Metallica, Napster! Hah) and 00s. But when I talk about this stuff now with people in their early 20s there seems to be less awareness. DRM & 'Stream everything' are the way it is, as if…
I see it kind of akin to how so few people carry cash on them. Credit cards and streaming are great for the day to day things and make things much easier. It's important to have a backup for the things that you care about. If the power goes out how are you paying for lunch. If your cloud photo site shuts down or has a data failure you just lost those baby pictures.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#276When I delete an article from my blog, it's because I don't want anyone to be able to read it anymore. Be it shame, inaccuracy, change of mood, etc... I think there is something fundamentally wrong with wanting to have EVERYTHING backed up at all time against the creators' will.
Mainly problem with any services is privacy. There's no privacy on internet. If you have a blog you have to count with fact that an article will be on internet forever. My advice is this - write an article today but publish it tomorrow (you'll have time for thinking about an article).
And I'd add to that advice: Never be afraid to add corrections and show them.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#277Is a certain browser required to reproduce the problem? I had no trouble accessing the archived page.
https://web.archive.org/web/20160826003417/https://medium.co... ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Interviewing my mother, a mainframe COBOL programmer
My 1 year older brother (to the left), my mother and me (to the right)
My mother has been working for one of the largest banks in the EU since before I was born and I've always been fascinated by her line of work, especially these last years since I've become a programmer myself. I've been asked to interview her plenty of times, and finally decided to do so.
* * *Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#278Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nope because they bought the book. It's their property. My article is MY property.
Your property is the copy on your computer(s) and the right to control who can make more copies. Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property. Your property rights end at the first sale [1]. If you don't want someone to own a copy of your article, don't give it to them or get them to agree to a contract[2]. [1] https://e…
>>Once you choose to make a copy and transmit it to someone else (perhaps as a response to a HTTP GET request), that copy becomes their property.
Has anyone tried your argument in a copyright case? Say, I access a NYT article, and according to your reasoning it becomes mine the moment their site show it to me. If it's mine I can publish and monetize it.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#279Over the last year I've come to trust effectively nothing on the internet. I've had so many Spotify playlists I was following disappear, whole artists, websites, articles, etc. I'm slowly moving to offline-first versions of all the information I care about. Edit: This change too also lends to the 'slow web' (or just slow $whatever) movement, which I'm a fan of.
One of the first things I do with any article that I've enjoyed is download an HTML copy and create a PDF. Too many times I've bookmarked something only to come back a year later and it's gone.
I used the Firefox extension Scrapbook, until the change to WebExtensions killed it.
I feel changes like this are incrementally making the Web "theirs" and not "ours".
Separately, someone replied on here to me, a few months ago, that archive.org's policy for respecting -- or not -- robots.txt was in the process of changing.
I don't think that putting up a robots.txt policy should be able to retroactively remove from archive what was previously public. All the more so when the domain in question has changed hands.
But I expect this nonsense to continue. So, I only trust local copies.
Unfortunately, for me, killing the Scrapbook extension made them less convenient to collect.
Re: Medium tries to prevent people reading deleted articles on the Wayback Machine?
#280Earlier quoted context omitted.
Archive.is is awesome. It just works.
Who pays for it?
I've always asked the same question myself... I don't think they are a nonprofit like the IA. Their FAQ says "It is privately funded" and wrt ads "I cannot make a promise that it will not".
Years ago there was an archiving service that displayed ads, but unfortunately I don't remember which one it was... I vaguely remember it could have been archive.is, but I'm not sure.