Archiving the Web
I have to say, I'm not entirely sure what to make of this story:
The UK's online heritage could be lost forever if the government does not grant a "right to archive", a group of leading libraries has said.
This is a problem, apparently:
That's probably true. After all, a lot of websites are set up, then are forgotten about or just plain abandoned. But it does rather beg the question of why you would want to archive a lot of the shit out there on the web. Does anyone really want to read the demented ramblings of Dirty European Socialist? Does history need a record of the jaw-dropping crassness of Councillor Terry Kelly? And is there any value that future ages could ever get from the insane worldview of Robin Page? The only real value of those writers would be to persuade people that dickheads are the one true constant of humankind.The British Library said research showed that the average life expectancy of a website was just 44 to 75 days, and suggested that at least 10% of all UK websites were either lost or replaced by new material every six months.
But it isn't the desire to archive rubbish that concerns me. If someone wants to do it, then fine. But this idea doesn't sit easily with me at all:
But the British Library says it never clarified what steps had to be taken before electronic material was recorded.
"We're in the ridiculous position where we have to ask permission of each webmaster before we archive a site," the spokesman said.
So what is so wrong with asking permission before a site is archived? I'd have thought that is the decent thing to do. If something is not your property, then you need to ask before you do anything with it, let alone archive it for the ages. There is nothing ridiculous about asking permission. It doesn't matter whether the British Library is doing this for commercial gain or not. The desire to create a historical record does not absolve the Library of the need to treat the property of others with respect. Hell, they should ask before they archive anything, not just websites.
posted by The Nameless Libertarian @ 11:59 am
4 Comments
4 Comments:
Just archiving, or any kind of copying? Photographs? Transcripts? Quotes?
I don't think IP arguments are that relevant here. If a webmaster displays his content publicly then taking a properly attributed snapshot of it shouldn't require permission.
Yeah, I know what you're saying and I find it hard to disagree. People can and do quote from this website whenever they like as long as they are not making money off of it.
I think what bothers me more is the assumptions behind this, and the tone of the demands. The British Library expects to be able to archive what it wants when it wants. And it has no problem in turning to our increasingly draconian government to demand that it has this right codified in law. It makes me wonder whether any webmasters have refused permission, and that is what this is all about.
You won't get any argument from me that government sticking its oar in doesn't really help, IP or no IP.
Ehmm...I believe the internet archive wayback machine has been doing this for years without asking permission.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home