= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Lumifer comments on Recovery Manual for Civilization - 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 (48)
No, it's not. Copyright (at least the US version) is not a problem for storing backups of digital information.
To rephrase that: copyright is not a problem for the most limited, vulnerable, restricted, unreplicated, useless, private backups; it is a big problem for all more useful forms of backups, such as ones which are ever transmitted or copied by third parties or the public. The Internet Archive is not a stranger to legal problems, and they're in a uniquely advantageous situation.
I am not a big fan of the current form of copyright, but it does mostly deal with redistributing and backups aren't about redistributing.
When information is "copied by third parties or the public", that's rarely about backups, that's predominantly about access and use.
Meaningful backup systems always involve multiple copies. What are the first laws of backups? 'you will lose data', and 'you always have one less copy than you think'. Or as the archivists says, 'lots of copies keeps stuff safe'.
Well, yes, Linus Torvald's backup system turned out to work rather well for him :-)
Backups of information that you own. Few individuals have the license to own 10,000s of textbooks but it's very easy to download them.
Aaron Schwartz died because of wanting to back up too much data.
Backups of information you have access to -- a very different thing. I can backup chunks of Wikipedia without owning it, for example.
Bullshit. He didn't want backups, he wanted to make it available.
Bullshit. Aaron Schwartz had a history of mass downloading academic papers and not distributing them. Why do you think it would have been different this time?
Wikipedia is licensed with a creative commons license that allows you to copy it's content. It's very different from the way a lot of textbooks are licensed.
DRM right protection laws forbid a lot of backup creation.
The whole point of achieving information is to make it available. Archive.org also makes the information available that it archives.
If he would have succeeded than we would now have thousands of copies of the Jstor database distributed all over the world. That creates resilience for that information in times of a catastrophe.