= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
gwern comments on Rationalist sites worth archiving? - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (44)
Does archive.org plan to implement a download feature and domain archive coverage indicator? (I assume they don't have that, otherwise you'd probably mention it. It would also make sense to publish such incremental archives as distributed version control access points.)
Edit: From the FAQ:
(No explanation is given for why this is though.)
But... the only way to view the 'data' is by copying it to my computer! That's how the Internet works!
I think that legally, the copy in your browser doesn't count somehow, the same way that the copy of a painting that you make by holding a mirror near it doesn't count. I'm guessing the criterion is whether the copy is ephemeral or persistent.
This is a place where copyright law and theory still haven't quite caught up, though there are numerous attempts to make laws about these things while just ignoring facts like "To use software one must often copy a significant part of it into memory".
ETA: There's usually something about being allowed to make copies of software if it "is an essential step in the utilization of the computer program", which is arguably an extension of the "transitory duration" clause (which would cover the 'mirror' case)
I would imagine intellectual property laws.