The article about that on the Internet Archive written by Brewster Kahle himself:<p><a href="https://blog.archive.org/2016/03/22/save-our-safe-harbor-submission-to-copyright-office-on-the-dmca-safe-harbor-for-user-contributions/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.archive.org/2016/03/22/save-our-safe-harbor-sub...</a><p>"We filed comments this week, explaining that the DMCA is generally working as Congress intended it to. These provisions allow platforms like the Internet Archive to provide services such as hosting and making available user-generated content without the risk of getting embroiled in lawsuit after lawsuit. We also offered some thoughts on ways the DMCA could work better for nonprofits and libraries, for example, by deterring copyright holders from using the notice and takedown process to silence legitimate commentary or criticism."
<i>> We are deeply concerned that automated filtering could lead to taking down many materials that are being used in reasonable, legitimate and legally protected ways—especially when the underlying purpose of the complaint is not copyright related but rather an attempt to silence critical speech.</i><p>How would "notice and staydown" (vs. takedown) work with systems like IPFS which use content hashes? Would there be centrally maintained blacklists against which which all hosting companies would need to screen inbound content?
Solution: monthly full core releases and daily update packs of the complete archive in torrent form.<p>Offload the copyright risk to those more willing to take it and you get to keep doing your friendly neighborhood scraping.
It seems obvious one should pay damages for making false copyright claims.<p>But.... why should we tolerate copyrights? What is in it for me?<p>I kinda like the idea of people doing paid work. If someone wants a something-for-nothing kind of formula they should pay for it themselves rather than creating an impossible burden for others (if not the whole world)<p>One can get enough funding before creating a work or before releasing it. After release the audience can make donations and/or chose to fund future works. This should be good enough for what we need.<p>Before we chose/prefer global mass persecution until the end of time over the crowd funding formula we should first have a good reason for it. Failure to preserve history for that extra bit of entertainment exploitation is not worth it. Not just because it fails to be entertaining.<p>I can't think of any but there might be a few works important enough for copyright to be an ideal formula but we can't expect it to work on the scale we are having it on right now.<p>At the very least a lack of license should default to something like creative commons. (If I rub a bit of snot on some paper I don't want to own the rights to it.)<p>If enough people want a copyrighted work they are going to get it anyway. The "dream" of artificial scarcity with infinite exploitation has ended. We have to write realistic laws now. Something that doesn't violate basic logic.<p>We the audience would gladly pay for a new season of Star trek. I suppose the fear here is that the audience would have influence on the programming?
It's fair use for historical and educational purposes. My technical explanation for copyright holders is tough noogies, or look at the hand. I'm just not at all sympathizing with their claims. The Internet Archive is a public good.
It's a nice thought. But this talk of "legitimate", "legally protected" and "wrongful" strikes me as just so much wishful thinking. To be reliably available, stuff must be posted in ways that can't be taken down. It's rather the same distinction as with encryption, isn't it?
The Internet Archive is one of the finest institutions of the Internet. The Archive is a not-for-profit and deserves your financial contributions and support. The proposed change to DCMA Copyright Takedowns rules would help resolve existing problems and ambiguities.
The Internet Archive archives many thousands of user profile pages and other types of user-generated content that the OP may eventually realize is not really wise to have online. Things like the individual message board posting histories of private figures. The Internet Archive has no right to display these things, as they don't have a license from the content's author or the outlet that the content author posted on. There is no public interest served by continuing to display these things, as the poster is a non-noteworthy private person and was in all likelihood just posting nonsense. The OP can contact the message board and probably get them to delete the profiles if they don't have a deletion option already baked into their platform, but what about archives like the Internet Archive? Will they comply with takedown requests for such individual profiles, or fight them as well, pretending that there is some public interest served by keeping it online?<p>Privacy is hard in the internet age.