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

Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

ssnat.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 98 posts

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#21

Post by jerf »

martindale wrote: post #17
coldpie wrote: post #14

So, what's the solution, here? It seems reasonable for a court opinion to include a copy of the source, if possible. What about for something like a YouTube video, which could disappear at any time, but can't be represented on paper? How would you agree on a digital format for representing a supreme court opinion?

Build awareness of the importance of the permanence of URIs and what they mean to Hypertext. The only full solution is a cultural one, not a technological one.

Culture isn't going to encourage people to host websites they're no longer interested in, where by "host websites" read "pay money for".

The only solution is some form of legalized archiving. We need the right to copy for archiving without profit, or something. Not sketching out a full, legal solution here, just pointing out that it has to include some form of right-to-archive.

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#22

Post by rayiner »

coldpie wrote: post #14

So, what's the solution, here? It seems reasonable for a court opinion to include a copy of the source, if possible. What about for something like a YouTube video, which could disappear at any time, but can't be represented on paper? How would you agree on a digital format for representing a supreme court opinion?

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has recommended, and many (most? all?) of the federal circuits now have an official policy of, saving web page links to PDF and filing them along with opinions. The Supreme Court tends to do its own thing, but I think that's a simple effective solution.

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#24

Post by echohack »

coldpie wrote: post #14

So, what's the solution, here? It seems reasonable for a court opinion to include a copy of the source, if possible. What about for something like a YouTube video, which could disappear at any time, but can't be represented on paper? How would you agree on a digital format for representing a supreme court opinion?

Put the documents on bittorrent and let the world mirror it for you.

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#26

Post by chimeracoder »

jerf wrote: post #21
martindale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build awareness of the importance of the permanence of URIs and what they mean to Hypertext. The only full solution is a cultural one, not a technological one.

Culture isn't going to encourage people to host websites they're no longer interested in, where by "host websites" read "pay money for". The only solution is some form of legalized archiving. We need the right to copy for archiving without profit, or something. Not sketching out a full, legal solution here, just pointing out that it has to include some form of right-to-archive.

> We need the right to copy for archiving without profit, or something.

Just throwing it out there - this is (in some sense) one of the intended purposes of the Library of Congress.

The Library of Congress already even announced a few years back that they were planning on archiving every public tweet.

Having them archive every video referenced in official documents (such as a Supreme Court decision) isn't that much of a stretch.

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#28

Post by kriro »

rayiner wrote: post #22
coldpie wrote: post #14

So, what's the solution, here? It seems reasonable for a court opinion to include a copy of the source, if possible. What about for something like a YouTube video, which could disappear at any time, but can't be represented on paper? How would you agree on a digital format for representing a supreme court opinion?

The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts has recommended, and many (most? all?) of the federal circuits now have an official policy of, saving web page links to PDF and filing them along with opinions. The Supreme Court tends to do its own thing, but I think that's a simple effective solution.

This is our policy for student papers of all sorts as well. All cited weblinks must be submitted in PDF form as well. Pretty sure that's super standard practice.

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#29

Post by jaggederest »

jerf wrote: post #21
martindale wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Build awareness of the importance of the permanence of URIs and what they mean to Hypertext. The only full solution is a cultural one, not a technological one.

Culture isn't going to encourage people to host websites they're no longer interested in, where by "host websites" read "pay money for". The only solution is some form of legalized archiving. We need the right to copy for archiving without profit, or something. Not sketching out a full, legal solution here, just pointing out that it has to include some form of right-to-archive.

That exists. Fair use covers non-profit educational uses, such as the awesome Internet Archive:

http://archive.org/

Re: Aren't you glad you didn't cite this webpage?

#30

Post by jaysonelliot »

I publish a print magazine. Up to this point, we've avoided printing URLs in the magazine, because our printed issues may last longer than the links will stay live.

To solve the problem, we're launching our own link shortener this month, and printing our own shortened links in the magazine. That way we can control what happens when link rot sets in, whether redirecting or caching content on our own servers if necessary (and allowed by copyright).

The side benefit is that all our printed links can be easy to read and type, an important usability concern when dealing with print. A little self-referential branding on the shortener doesn't hurt, either.

Post reply on HN