A Real Copyright Problem In The UK: The Difficulty Of Archiving Important Websites
from the fair-use-is-important dept
While UK politicians are arguing over a ridiculous and unnecessary change to copyright law as part of the Digital Economy Bill, it appears there's a much bigger problem with UK copyright law that isn't getting very much attention at all. Slashdot points us to the news that due to the way copyright law currently works in the UK, archiving websites without permission is illegal. Yes, even for the British Library and other institutions who are designated by law to keep a copy of every printed publication. But when it comes to the web, the Library needs to get permission from every website that it wishes to archive. Obviously, that greatly limits the archival activity that the Library can be involved in -- and, as a result, the public suffers greatly. This is a clear case where fair use should cover the issues, but current law does not adequately handle this. Making fair use work better should be a priority -- but instead we have politicians trying to prop up Hollywood's business model by pushing copyright law in the other direction.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Stack the Digital Economy Bill on top of that, and we're back in the dark ages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Time to realise that copyright is simply incompatible with modern technology and abandon it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
I'm no laywer, but enabling offline web pages in IE appears to be illegal unless you have permission from the creators of the web pages you visit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Meta comment
I can't think of any such cases, which is why I'm a copyright abolitionist.
However, assuming you remain in support of copyright, I'm intrigued to know what it is that maintains your support for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Meta comment
I can't think of any such cases, which is why I'm a copyright abolitionist.
However, assuming you remain in support of copyright, I'm intrigued to know what it is that maintains your support for it.
I'm a copyright agnostic. I'm in favor of "promoting the progress," but I prefer an evidence-based plan for doing so. So while I have not seen any evidence to date that copyright does, in fact, promote the progress, I am trying to keep an open mind that someone could one day present some.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Meta comment
As for 'promote the progress', I've already pointed out that that Constitutional aspiration doesn't apply to copyright, but to writers' and inventors' exclusive right to their writings and designs - a natural right that I wholeheartedly agree should be secured.
Anyway, if any legislator was going to grant monopolies in literary works to the Stationer's Guild then they'd hardly justify it on the basis that it would enrich the press in exchange for enabling the state to suppress sedition. One could only expect a pretext such as 'for the Encouragement of Learning'.
ACTA also has a noble pretext of preserving life though suppression of harmful counterfeits.
The fact that monopolies (+market/channel control) are lucrative to the larger market players (and the state lobbied by them) is obvious - and provides ample motivation for 'protective' legislation.
What is not obvious is how so many people can readily believe the legislation to be socially beneficial - or even that it may one day be demonstrated to be so.
I am skeptical that anyone can have written and understood as much about copyright as you have and still entertain the possibility that all the social harm may yet be not only counterbalanced, but greatly outweighed by evidence yet to materialise.
One day (very soon) copyright abolitionism will not be regarded as the heliocentric ideology of a lunatic fringe. I look forward to your epiphany. ;-)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
They might not want their "rights" taken away - but it would be in their own best interest - because it would set them free.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
I believe Mike's stance is due to a fear (rational fear) of being grouped together with the straw-men he so eagerly points out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
See a recent comment of mine here: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20100201/0028137983.shtml#c1574
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
No, no stigma.
I thought I was clear. My position is that I want whatever is best for progress. Why totally block off a route to progress if someone can show that it will work?
I'm skeptical that anyone can, but why block that off entirely?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
To leave copyright as a historical fait accompli, and then attempt to justify that it should not be abolished or 'blocked off' just in case evidence may one day materialise that demonstrates it to be more socially beneficial (conducive to 'progress') than its absence, is not a particularly sound position. It would be akin to having an 'agnostic' position on slavery, that in theory, if slaves were well treated to encourage enthusiasm, evidence may yet materialise to demonstrate that slavery was more socially beneficial than employment alone. Could one therefore be against the abolition of slavery on the off chance that it might one day prove the better to advance progress?
Your position is that of a utilitarian, albeit one yet to be convinced at copyright's social utility - patiently waiting.
A natural rights libertarian would not hesitate. You do not suspend the individual's liberty on the off chance a 300 year experiment could one day demonstrate it to be better exploited by industry. Even putting the ethical issues aside, we don't have the alternate universe (in which monopolies in literary works were never granted) to compare what three centuries of free cultural intercourse would have produced. And this gives rise to complacent acceptance of copyright - people don't see what it's prevented, what they've not had, and so recognise no loss. They see only the culture they have had, and so assume this could only have been achieved with copyright. It's very similar to patent. People assume that because patent law arrived with the industrial revolution that it must therefore have been patents that enabled and facilitated the industrial revolution. Au contraire, monopolies are parasites that arise precisely because there is progress to be harnessed, creative energy to be siphoned. They don't give rise to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Meta comment
Indeed. I am not a libertarian.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do takedowns apply to archived websites ?
Whose job is it to know where else the site may be archived ?
- I can't be expected to know who archived my site.
- The takedown issuer can't know for sure.
And although when there is just one archiver (the British Library) it might be easy, who says there couldn't be many ?
Is it appropriate to preserve a libellous publication for posterity when the courts have decreed that it should be unpublished ?
Is there a legal distinction between "archived so you could go and look at it in the library" and "archived so you can find it on the web" ?
Come to that, does a takedown of a website imply that the Google cache has to be wiped too ?
This seems like a minefield.
Can college law students choose this area as a major these days ? Seems like a growth area to me...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
is it there yet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Copyright
The human brain should also be considered a computer and all Copyright laws should apply to memory storage of people the same as my desktop.
If the law is infeasible, then it should be abolished.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP laws should be changed to "opt-in"
Personally, I think copyright, and possibly other IP laws, should be changed back to that format. Fair use would be the intended, default action; only by spending the time and money to get the legal protection would someone be able "deny" fair-use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]