Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

sweden.postsen.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 68 posts

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#51

Post by boomboomsubban »

pannSun wrote: post #49
boomboomsubban wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there any reason to suspect it's something besides the person behind the content requested their domain be excluded? Or IA behaving as they legally should and always have?

Yes - the Archive's refusal to provide a reason. They don't get to have both the privilege of opaquely excluding content, and the assumption that all exclusions are for the most faultless reasons.

Why would they provide a reason for a standard procedure? I'm fairly certain their exclusion guidelines are documented on their site.

Are the content owners complaining about a desire to be archived but IA is blocking them? As if not, I don't see the issue.

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#52

Post by [deleted] »

naasking wrote: post #28
zokier wrote: post #9

What do you think happens when you upload captured TV-content on YT?? From copyright point of view there is not really much difference between 20 day old content and 20 year old content, its all equally protected. Just saying that the intent is "archival" doesn't change anything

> Just saying that the intent is "archival" doesn't change anything Well, it sort of does because copyright laws have carve outs for libraries and archiving.

[deleted]

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#54

Post by pannSun »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #51
pannSun wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes - the Archive's refusal to provide a reason. They don't get to have both the privilege of opaquely excluding content, and the assumption that all exclusions are for the most faultless reasons.

Why would they provide a reason for a standard procedure? I'm fairly certain their exclusion guidelines are documented on their site. Are the content owners complaining about a desire to be archived but IA is blocking them? As if not, I don't see the issue.

This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac...

I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being "standard" makes it any better.

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#55

Post by boomboomsubban »

pannSun wrote: post #54
boomboomsubban wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would they provide a reason for a standard procedure? I'm fairly certain their exclusion guidelines are documented on their site. Are the content owners complaining about a desire to be archived but IA is blocking them? As if not, I don't see the issue.

This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac... I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being…

>including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner:

Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to.

You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship. Unless there are examples of these people wanting their content archived and the IA refusing, I don't see your point. Anybody is free to tell the IA not to archive their copyright material.

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#56

Post by chmod775 »

dalke wrote: post #31

That was freaky! I live in Trollhättan and did NOT expect to immediately recognize the background scene of a picture linked-to from HN. If I'm not mistaken, here's the bench - https://www.google.com/maps/@58.2749468,12.270221,3a,60y,141... . While it's right by the Olidan Hydroelectric Power Station, the photographer used a telephoto lens so Rosa Mannen is in the foreground and the upstream Hojum Hydroelectric Power…

URL was since changed. Here is the original article for context: https://www.gp.se/kultur/kultur/youtubekanalen-rosa-mannen-n...

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#57

Post by BlueTemplar »

mrweasel wrote: post #22
zokier wrote: post #9

What do you think happens when you upload captured TV-content on YT?? From copyright point of view there is not really much difference between 20 day old content and 20 year old content, its all equally protected. Just saying that the intent is "archival" doesn't change anything

Sadly we have many hobbyist who do great work, but they are completely naive about the world. I'd hate to see the work go to waste. I think archiving these things are important, sadly people who work like this are making a ton of assumptions about how the world works and often completely ignore legal issues. It's often good that they do, if someone sat down and tried to handle the legality of the project first, then…

And nobody warned him ? Especially considering what happened to movie archives on MegaUpload and also after YouTube introducing ContentID ??

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#58

Post by pannSun »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #55
pannSun wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This forum thread documents that websites can be excluded for various reasons, including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: https://archive.org/post/778/exclusions-from-the-wayback-mac... I'm sure there's some guideline somewhere giving themselves blanket excuse to do anything they want, then hide behind secrecy and hope people will assume the best. What I'm not sure is why such duplicity being…

>including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a…

> You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship

Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#59

Post by boomboomsubban »

pannSun wrote: post #58
boomboomsubban wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>including complaints by people other than the website/domain owner: Yes, they are legally required to listen to the copyright owner's request. In your linked example, that was the church of scientology. In your earlier post, that would be whoever was writing the tweets. Twitter could also choose to block their requests as the wayback machine would also grab their copyrighted code, but choose not to. You're making a…

> You're making a documented legal requirement sound like a shady partisanship Unless keeping the cause of removal secret is also a legal requirement, then this is by definition shady. And you assume that because some removals are results of legal complaints, then all are. It is Archive's choice to keep us in the dark regarding removals, and it is our choice not to trust them for it.

I assume all unarchived content is unarchived because of their established policy for not archiving things, which is the copyright holder refusing archiving. Why would I assume otherwise?

We aren't being kept in the dark, we know the reason some content is unarchived and they say which content is unarchived.

Your complaint is like going to a store with posted hours after closing and demanding an explanation for why they aren't letting you in. It's possible there's some vast conspiracy to block you from shopping, bit it's more likely they're following the posted rules.

Re: Swedish amateur archivist “Rosa Mannen” shut down from YouTube again

#60

Post by Thorrez »

pannSun wrote: post #19
RajT88 wrote: post #2

Youtube is the wrong place for this sort of thing, unfortunately. Archive.org is the right place for it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/twitter.com/Tayl... https://web.archive.org/web/20220000000000*/amren.com Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine. No reason or explanation given, or hint at who excluded it.

For the second example it's pretty clear why it's excluded:

https://www.amren.com/robots.txt

    User-agent: ia_archiver
    Disallow: /
For the first example, it sounds like[1] she requested that her page be excluded. It sounds like[2] the Internet Archive allows you to request that.

[1] https://www.foxnews.com/media/taylor-lorenz-twitter-page-exc...

[2] https://help.archive.org/help/how-do-i-request-to-remove-som...

Post reply on HN